Bible Study - END TIMES?
by The Righterzpen
Summary: So have you ever wondered when the world was going to end? You ever read the book of Daniel or Revelation and said: "What the... flip does that mean?" Well here's a tantalizing Bible study for you! Comparing Scripture with Scripture, this one is guaranteed to be like nothing you've ever read before! Happy reading - you are about to enter "the Revelation Zone"
1. Introduction

_Disclaimer - This study is a compilation of information gathered from Scripture, historical documentation, archaeological evidence and some of my own theory. To the best of my knowledge, all the facts quoted are in the public domain._

 _I have decided to make this study available as "public domain". This study, or portions of it may be copied / posted / translated and made avaihalbe in the public domain for any person who wishes to share this information. I will not claim any ownership of any truth I may have uncovered in the course of my studies._

 _As has been given freely to me, I give freely to others._

* * *

 **End Times?**

Now, among all my Bible study theories, comes another subject I've been pondering (as well as studying off and on) for a while now. How close are we actually to the end?

Now of course I know "no man knows the day or the hour". Jesus himself said he didn't even know, or at least he didn't know at the point he was walking this earth. (Tis conjecture on my part here but, I think he probably knows now.)

Anyways. How close are we…. really? Are we a couple of years away, a couple of decades, a couple of centuries, or even another thousand years? Is there even a way of knowing?

Through most of my Christian life (as well as what much of church history has taught); I believed most of Scriptural prophecy was related to Christ's first coming, along with events that occurred in the first century. For the most part, I still believe this. As I look at different Scriptures though; where the possibility arises that we may be seeing certain "prototypes" (as in the "new heavens and new earth" prototype idea that I'd presented in "theories on the afterlife") or passages with multiple layers of meanings? I start to wonder?

 _ **Historical Context? How important it it?**_

Now before I even started to take a more in-depth look at the passages in question; I spent a lot of time pondering what made the most sense in historical context. I read through several texts, as well as reading up on theories both past and present.

First thought that came to my mind: what if we could suddenly teleport a first century Christian into 21st Century America, who had an average knowledge of Christ, with adequate exposure to 1st century Judaism, but a good understanding of faith. What would they have readily recognized that would have been culturally relevant both then and now? What interpretations would have been totally foreign to them? What of current times would they have taken recognizable note of and what would have struck them with great apprehension as a "sign of God's impending judgment"?

This question is important as to recognizing how they may have understood both Daniel and Revelation, that would have been different from most current interpretations. The thing that I find most lacking about current interpretations is that there is no historical consistency with what actually happened when that Scripture was written. Although I understand that "historical consistency" is not the be all and end all of understanding Scripture; God also doesn't work in a vacuum where all things related to a given "time" are isolated from the past.

For example, if we started talking to a 1st Century Christian about the Roman Catholic Church being "Babylon the Mother of Harlots", they would have looked at us like we'd just grown two heads. There was no Roman Catholic Church when Revelation was written and since they were the generation who'd received the book when it was written, as it had been written, the book of Revelation (was intended to) and would have made at least some sense to them; (even if they didn't understand all of it). This is why I think we get some clues from the Scripture (such as Babylon being Jerusalem.) Those things made contextual historical sense to them and that's why these snippets of interpretation made it into the Scripture.

So considering historical context and consistency, what would a quasi-gentile Christian recognize today, both doctrinally and of cultural elements?

 _ **Christianity:**_

1\. Most basic fundamentals of faith. (death, burial and resurrection of Christ)

2\. Requirement of belief on Christ. (reliance upon)

3\. Repentance from sin.

4\. Doctrine basics.

Some understanding of the Hebrew concept of "Son of God" meant that besides the "Father in Heaven", Jesus is also Divine and so is the Spirit of God.

Some understanding of monotheism.

Some understanding of Divine retribution for sin.

Belief in both heaven and hell.

Belief in a physical resurrection from the dead.

Belief in a second coming.

5\. An understanding of a need for assembly for worship.

(Most of these elements are covered in the "Apostles' Creed".)

 _ **Culture:**_

They certainly would have recognized Greco-Roman cultural elements in western societies, such as governmental systems, and venues of public discourse. Attitudes of sexual morays would not have shocked them, nor would the materialistic nature of American society. They also would have recognized the "military industrial complex" required for "empire building".

Ideas of "freedom of religion" also would not have shocked them, but I think they would have been surprised of how homogenous most American religious beliefs are. (Roman society was religiously more diverse.) They may recognize modern concepts of patriotism as a type of replacement for emperor worship.

Things that would have culturally surprised them would have been the lack of obvious class structure and the general egalitarianism of western society. Women have rights, children have rights, (even animals have rights) and there are no legal slaves. They also probably would have been surprised by the overall literacy of society and (depending on what stratus of Rome they'd come from) impressed with the concept of education for the masses. Of course they would be impressed by our advances in technology and most notably amazed by the cleanliness of cities and advancements in medicine.

On the flip side of this, they probably would be a bit perplexed by ironies like "going to the gym" for lack of manual labor in everyday life, as well as the general impression that people have gotten "soft" and/or lazy for all the labor machines now do for us. Also of notable difference would be attitudes on crime, punishment, civil interactions of races and nationalities in the public marketplace and discipline of children.

 _ **Judaism:**_

A first century Christian would certainly have recognized Judaism's presence in modern western society; but also recognized that modern (Rabbinic) Judaism is the "far right" Pharisaic version of first century Judaism. Once the temple was destroyed and the Sadducees disappeared; the balance between the two schools of thought also disappeared and all Jewish law and history came to be interpreted through one set of glasses.

Taking into account that the subject of Judaism as it related to Christianity, was a topic of considerable debate in the 1st century church; a first century Christian would have likely found modern Christian support for a people and nation who still do not recognize their Messiah perplexing in the very least. Keep in mind that it was the Pharisees whom Jesus had the most negative interactions with and ultimately, they were the group who sought with the greatest fervor to crucify him. Besides this glaring inconsistency, a first century Christian who'd done any digging into the political, economic and entertainment / media structure of American culture, would be scratching their heads as to why is this group of people running your society?

* * *

So, with those questions in the back of our minds; let's start looking at some Bible passages and see what we come up with.


	2. Know day and hour?

" _ **No man knows the day and hour":**_

This phrase shows up in three different passages:

Matthew 24:36,

Mark 13:32,

And in a bit of a different (yet related) context - Luke 12:46

Now most commentators assess that the meaning of this, is that no one knows the day and hour; as well as no one will _**ever**_ know the day or hour. Is this true though?

One thing contextually we have to ask ourselves about this phrase and the passages it's contained in; is that Jesus states that he "doesn't know the day and hour". Now do we make the same assumption about Jesus never knowing the day and hour as we make about no one else knowing the day and hour? Contextually speaking; to say Jesus (God incarnate as now having ascended into heaven) will never know the day or the hour, doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

So this brings up the next question. Is this phrase contextually linked to the time of it's speaking; seeing how Jesus (obviously) at _**some**_ point will know the day and hour. This appears to be the case, seeing how the construct of the Greek verb "to know" in this verse, is in the "present indicative active" voice. The "indicative" is the only verb construct that can be tied to the time the speaker is speaking.

This also makes sense in the context of what Jesus says following this phrase. Because you (people I'm speaking to standing before me in the flesh) are not going to know the day and hour; be ready that it might come whenever.

 _ **Acts 1:6-7**_

This is the next verse concerning knowing "times and seasons". This statement is made by Jesus just before he ascends back into heaven post resurrection. He says "It's not for you to know times and seasons that the Father has put in place by His own authority."

Now in this phrase we see the "present indicative active" but also the "aorist infinitive active". "It is (present indicative active) not for you to know (aorist infinitive active) times and seasons that the Father has put in place by His own authority." Now the "it is" related to the "you" who Jesus is speaking to, is connected to the time he's speaking; but the "know" of times and seasons, is not connected to the time of speaking. So what this does grammatically, is it opens the door for the possibility that this knowledge will be obtained later by people who come after them.

 _ **Note too what Jesus is NOT saying in this particular interchange.**_

Jesus is not saying that _**he/He**_ doesn't know "the day and the hour" at that point.

Remember this is post resurrection; after Jesus's soul and spirit had already ascended to heaven when he died. Although his body was still in the grave when his soul and spirit ascended into heaven; this does not mean these things were not revealed to him while in heaven. So, upon rising from the dead it seems apparent that he would have retained that knowledge.

So what knowledge had Jesus attained that he'd "come back with" in the flesh? I'm not sure, but my hypothesis would be - the rest of the revelation of the New Testament Scriptures. What ever information reveled in the remainder of the New Testament (which hadn't been written yet) is what Jesus "came back" with.

Now the next question becomes: given only the Scripture we have (Old and New Testaments) what can we learn about the end of time?

 _ **1 Thessalonians 5:1-10:**_

Now this passage makes a distinction between the children of light and the children of darkness. The children of light are able to "discern the times" and the children of darkness are not. The children of light will be prepared, for they know Jesus comes "as a thief in the night" and the children of darkness are not going to be prepared.

The next verse says:

 **For when they shall say peace and safety; than sudden destruction comes upon them as travail upon a woman with child and they shall not escape.**

What does "peace and safety" mean and do we have any clues as to when they will say it?

"Peace" - in this verse means "when all essential parts are joined together in wholeness". It was most commonly used in Hebrew as both a greeting and departing blessing to people wishing them "completeness of health". It is a kin to "peace be upon you" or Arabic "salaam alaikum".

"Safety" - in this verse means "certainty" and "secure proof".

Now neither of these give us any clue as to context of when this is being said and what it means in the context of the end of time. The only thing we do know is that "when they shall say" means "to come to the conclusion of a conversation" and yet while this conversation is concluding, than sudden destruction comes upon them.

The next clue we have contextually is those of the "darkness" are "sleeping" and "getting drunk". Now I'll come back to "getting drunk" because other passages concerning "thief in the night" also talk about drunkenness. It's not a literal drunkenness per say though, it's a state of spiritual deception.

 _ **Psalm 4:**_

This is the only other place were "Peace" and "safety" show up in the Bible. The basic theme of this psalm is about trusting in God. "I will lay down in _**peace and sleep**_ ; for the Lord makes me dwell in _**safety.**_ "

Here is our contrast between trust in God "peace and safety" and self deceived "peace and safety". This is worthy of noting too, because we will see as we go through the rest of the passages that talk about "coming as a thief in the night"; the context is always about people claiming to know the truth. These "servants" all claim to belong to the same Lord.

 _ **The next most logical question is what does "as a thief in the night" look like? What are the children of the light discerning as the sign of the coming thief?**_

2 Peter 3:10: This passage gives us some more information. First off, it tells us "the Day of the Lord" (judgment day) also "comes as a thief in the night". _Obviously with The Day, comes Jesus too._ This verse though also defines "judgement day" as it describes the destruction of the cosmos.

So, is "the servant" prepared for judgement day?

 _ **Matthew 24:43-51, Luke 12**_

One thing the servant who isn't prepared is saying: "the Lord delays His coming". The remainder of the passages state that this wicked servant begins to "beat" the other servants (to wound them - metaphorically), to "eat" and "get drunk".

Now to "eat" in these passages means "to consume away"; such as rust consumes away a piece of metal. In both contexts the word implies a banquet that belongs to Christ - i.e. 'the table of the Lord'.

This same implication is also picked up by the next word portion of the phrase "to drink _**and be drunk**_ ". That particular word 'drunk' is only used in 4 places in the Bible.

 _ **Luke 12:45**_ \- (Beat servants and drunk)

 _ **Ephesians 5:18**_ \- (Don't be drunk with wine, this is 'debauchery') ' _debauchery' - This is the construct of two words which literally mean 'not' & 'save'. It's only used 2 other places in the Bible. _

_Titus 1:6_ _\- qualification of an elder 'to not be accused of riot'._

 _1 Peter 4:4_ _\- Describes a contrast between one who once engaged in 'the behavior of the nations' and since they no longer run in this 'riot / debauchery'; they are spoken evil of. Verse 1 of chapter 4 talks about 'Christ therefore having suffered in the flesh…' Although, this is not a reference to being crucified. This is a reference to suffering emotionally. 'in the flesh' (or in the human nature). (To be maligned, marginalized, gossiped about and seen as not important; or having anything worthy of contributing.) To understand that contextually, we'd have to go to Isaiah 53. I cover that passage in my_ _What did He REALLY Look Like_ _study. The rest of verse 1, tells those who are suffering in like manner, to 'arm yourself likewise with the same mind (of Christ)'._

 _ **1 Thessalonians 5:7**_ \- (Peace and safety be drunk)

 _ **Revelation 17:2**_ \- (Babylon mother of harlots made inhabitance of the earth drunk with the wine of her fornication.)

So if we string all these passages together; we get a better understanding of what the spiritual environment of the church in the end of time looks like. Now granted if you follow church history through the centuries, you will see this phenomena at work. _(Those who claim to be servants of the Lord persecuting those who really are.)_ Even today, around the world there is a lot of physical persecution and literal murder taking place. As we move through this study though, we will start to see other elements that are specific to the end of time that weren't present in the past centuries. This has more to do with ideologies and doctrines as they relate to the first beast in Revelation 13.

Finally, in all of this we have an interesting verse that I'd be amiss if I did not point out:

 _ **Revelation 10:7 -**_ "But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God should be finished as he has declared to his servants the prophets.

Note: This mystery has been declared to his servants the prophets.

How is it declared? It is declared in the text of the Scripture!

Now, the seventh angel; what does the Bible tell us about the 7th angel? This angel is mentioned two other places in the Bible. Revelation 11:15 and Revelation 16:17. What is occurring in the verses surrounding the mention of this angel?

 _ **Revelation 11:**_

Note verse 15 "...great voices in heaven, saying: The kingdoms of this world are become the kingdoms of our Lord and of his Christ and he shall reign for ever and ever."

"...the kingdoms of this world are become..." This is the completion of the gospel proclaimed into all the world. Now it is true that at the commencement of the proclamation of the gospel from Pentecost on; "the kingdoms of this world" will be conquered by the gospel. Yet in this verse here; that is now the "done deal". We know that is the case because of verse 18.

Verse 18 declares: "...thy wrath has come and the time of the dead that they should be judged..." The seventh angel sounds just prior to the final resurrection.

 _ **Revelation 16:**_

This passage is interesting because it's talking about "the battle of Armageddon" and a "great earthquake such as not since men were upon the earth". This appears to be the commencement of the destruction of the cosmos. Yet as we move through chapters 17, 18, 19 and 20; we see Satan is bound for 1000 years (Revelation 20:2) and as we'll see moving through this study; the millennial reign started with the resurrection.

So what does "armageddon" mean?

It's a composite of two Hebrew words meaning "mountain" and "gather". The implication of the Hebrew word is that they are gathering together as an army of conquest. Its root is translated most frequently as "cut"; and it's use portrays two variations: the prophets of Baal "cutting" themselves and a command in Deuteronomy not to "cut" yourselves for the dead.

Interestingly, there are some correlations in the New Testament. There were two earthquakes; one at the point Jesus died and a second upon the resurrection. Is this second earthquake and the "battle of Armageddon" explaining to us what's going on in the spiritual realm? The armies of God against the forces of darkness; as the ransomed who've died prior to the crucifixion are released from Sheol to ascend to the throne of God out of what's commonly called "the great tribulation".


	3. Political empires - book of Daniel

**END TIMES?**

Chapter 1

 _ **General information we can glean from Revelation:**_

Of all my recent studies, my latest fascination has been with the first beast in Revelation 13. That interesting description of this entity that is a combination of a leopard, a bear and a lion, with 7 heads and 10 horns, crowns etc. This beast which is described also in Revelation 17, wherewith "5 kings are fallen, one now is and one is yet to come". (This I believe is a time reference to the writing of the book of Revelation.) Also though, the same chapter talks about 10 kings who have not received their kingdoms as of yet, but in the end make the whore of Babylon desolate.

We know from chapter 17 and the "five kings who've fallen" that this beast is in existence at the point the book of Revelation has been written. Interestingly though, we can also conclude from the "10 kings who have no kingdom yet" who destroy the whore, followed by the final resurrection; that this beast had a particular beginning some point prior to the completion of Scripture and will continue to exist until the end of time. We know the beast continues to the end of time because this beast, the dragon and the false prophet are all thrown into the lake of fire in the end of Revelation. (19:20)

So since we know this beast is in existence at the writing of Revelation and continues until the end of time, we can see from the past 2000 plus years, that apparently it's a pretty long lived beast. So taking that into consideration, this narrows down our possibilities as to what this beast is.

Now, taking our cue from the Bible, which tells us that it interprets itself; we know one explanation of this beast is a conglomerate of 4 other beasts described in the book of Daniel. (A leopard, a bear and a lion; along with another beast with the 7 heads, 10 horns and crowns) The book of Daniel tells us these beasts are kingdoms (Daniel 7:17) and compares them to a statue of a man which is also explained by the text itself as kingdoms.

 _Nebuchadnezzar's Dream: (Daniel 2)_

Head = Babylonian

Upper body = Med-Persian

Lower Body = Grecian

Feet = Roman Empire

Although the statue in Nebuchadnezzar's dream pretty clearly describes political empires, the last beast of Daniel's 4 beasts (as well as this Revelation 13 beast), describes this beast as "unlike any of the others"; and (besides the time clue about the five kings and the lake of fire) this is one reason why I would not say these beasts are the Roman Empire (or any reconstituted version of the Roman Empire, the European Union, the UN or any other such organization).

First off, the Roman Empire was a self contained political entity, which ruled a large geographical area and had a distinct beginning and a distinct end. The Roman Empire, just like it's predecessors, as well as empires that came after it (The British, The Byzantine, The Ottoman, The Austria-Hungry, The 3rd Reich and even the Holy Roman (Catholic Church) empire) all had independent agendas based on the culture and religion of the particular group of people who originated that empire. Also all these empires waxed and wained in power and in a certain particular way "come to an end".

This fourth beast in both Daniel and Revelation though, is described as having a global reach. It "rises up" out of the sea. (The Greek here also can be translated "to grow".) This beast "grows" over time and no where until we get to judgement day, do we see this beast is "shrunk" or destroyed. The only clue we have about this beast's "death" is that one of it's heads receives a death blow, yet is restored. Beside that though, the beast itself is not injured. This beast is not like the statue of Nebuchadnezzar's dream that is toppled by a mountain from heaven.

 _ **Side note on Nebuchadnezzar's statue:**_

 _The "mountain" that topples the statue, was Christ's first appearance on earth, wherewith he completes the salvation plan in human time and sets up the "second phase" of the workings out of God's kingdom in earthly history. God's salvation plan supersedes all other kingdoms and this is why the statue topples when the mountain hits it's feet. It's feet are partially clay._

 _Clay is a state of the human condition. Remember Adam (and Eve through Adam) was literally "made out of the dust of the earth". Salvation personally changes vast swaths of humanity to specifically change the course of the history of entire nations, empires and ultimately planet Earth. This is part of what we see with the fall of the Roman Empire. In a very real way, Christianity brought down Rome._

 _Now follow Christianity's influence through western civilization into the modern world today. (One of the major empires used by God to spread Christian ideas was Britain.) The recognition of truths like "absolute moral authority" is what sprung up humanitarian movements throughout the past 2000 years and caused millions to lay down their lives to end ancient institutions like slavery and genocide. Christian ideas on social justice equalized humanity, instead of dividing people based race, gender and nationality. (We historically don't see the idea of a race being "genetically inferior" until we get to Darwin. Prior to this, the reason for "inferior cultures" was seen as a lack of knowledge and understanding coupled with sin, not as people with a lack of capacity.) The Bible is literally the foundation of why we have human rights today.)_

So, getting back to this beast in Revelation. Part of the answer about what it actually is, has just been inadvertently illustrated by my little sidetrack about Christianity's influence on human history. Yes, this beast is an "empire" but it is not what we traditionally have seen in history as empires. It doesn't "fall" as we have seen (still see today) traditional empires / nations "fall". This is why this beast has kings and crowns and kingdoms that are a part of its make up. This beast continues to grow in influence and power, even though the political kingdoms it exercises authority over (or as the text says, these kingdoms give it their authority) come and go through the course of the centuries.

So what is our best modern descriptor of what "empire" this beast is, if it's not a specific geo-political empire?

Is it a "global conglomerate empire"?

Is it an "economic empire"?

That whole thing about the mark of the beast in the forehead or hand - is it a "technological empire"?

Is it some combination of all three?

The answer I would give to those questions is "yes" and "no". From what I'm gathering of its Scriptural description; this beast isn't specifically a geo-political empire, the economy, or technology. Yes "the beast" uses all these things to it's own wicked ends, (and needs them to "grow") but these individual elements are not "the beast".

The base core of the beast is a pervasive malevolent spiritual undertone that infiltrates all these other areas to "grow" it's power to world domination. (It's power untimely coming from Satan.) People are more familiar today with the term "deep state", "the illuminati", "Builder Burger group" etc. If we go back in time a little bit, we find "the Masons", "Knights Templar" and other various "secret" organizations that no one really knows what the extent of "the secret" was, because once these groups are discovered, the power mongers (like little cockroaches) go underground and pop up as something else. These power mongers of these secret organizations are what I would call "the blood that flows through this beast". I would not say that any of these aforementioned secret organizations are "the beast" either. They are but only stepping stones in it's evolution to maturity.

So there is what I believe is Scripturally the "workings of the beast"; and those steeped in this deception, (who've willingly deceived both themselves and others) in their quest for "secret wisdom" to obtain their power and wealth, are the one's who've "received the mark of the beast in the forehead" (I'll talk a bit about the possibilities of "hand" later.) Their "secret wisdom" may have been sought through a variety of venues; from strait out Satanism to pseudo-Christian gospels (also including, but not limited to: Judaism, Islam, Eastern religions, New Age religion, Darwinian religion, Atheism, Communism, etc).

Obviously I don't think the beast or Satan is the driving force behind every rich man, or world leader who's ascended the world stage in the past 2000 years. Nor do I believe everyone who's come into a place of any sort of power, wealth or success has "received the mark of the beast"; only those who seek these things by malevolent means in pointedly opposing God and denying Christ are those who, as Christ said "are of their father the Devil" and "do the works of their father" which, as this passage points out, entails worshiping the beast.

* * *

 _ **From here, we will now look at some details about the beast.**_


	4. The mark of the beast

**END TIMES**

 **Chapter 2**

 _ **Receive the mark of the beast:**_

Now of course the next most obvious question is: What does it mean to receive the mark of this beast in the forehead or hand? The answer I've found is actually two fold.

 _Mark in the forehead:_

One clue comes to us from another verse in the book of Revelation that talks about those "who have their Father's name written on their foreheads" (God's seal in their foreheads - Revelation 9:4) This obviously is a reference to believers who've been bought by the blood of Christ. The interesting correlation I find here, is the location of the name or (as well as) the mark. Both are on the individuals' forehead. Now obviously, believers don't literally have the name of our Father written on our foreheads; but we can be identified as what we are by our fruits.

The chief purpose of a Christian, as commissioned by God, is to "take the gospel into all the world". We proclaim the gospel both verbally and in action, by the lives we live and the works we perform. "Faith (belief, trust in Christ) without works is dead." The "works" and the "fruit" are both internal and external. We grow in trust, hope, love, patience, goodness, proper attitude, good works etc.

Comparing these two Scriptures with each other, I think is pointing out to us that a belief system (in the mind / forehead i.e. "mark of the beast" or "Father's name") is made manifest by the works of the hands.

 _Mark in the hand:_

Now here is an interesting (yet I think significant) anomaly I discovered about the difference in the language of Revelation 13 (mark in forehead or hand) and the language in Revelation 19 that talks about those "receiving" the mark being cast into the lake of fire.

The words translated "received" in chapter 13 and 19 are two different words. The chapter 13 word means "to be imparted with" and is usually in passive voice, where as the chapter 19 word means to "run after and take hold of". In chapter 13, the second beast (the one with lamb horns) causes "all the peoples of the earth" to "receive" (passive) the mark of the (first) beast. In Chapter 19 though, only those who "received" (actively sought) the mark and worshiped the beast are cast into the lake of fire.

So as the language of the text indicates, we apparently have two sets of people who "receive" the mark of the beast; yet they do so in different ways. This I think could be the distinction between those who "run after and take hold of" it in their forehead and those who "are imparted with" it on their hand.

Now, why the distinction? Why not impart everyone who is to receive the mark on the forehead? Maybe because of Revelation 9? Could it be that some of those who passively receive it in their hand, have already been marked on their foreheads by their Heavenly Father? Keep in mind that only those who _**actively**_ received the mark _**and**_ worshiped the beast are cast into the lake of fire.

With all this being said; I just recently found another "monkey wrench" to be thrown into my theory on marks in hands and foreheads. That wrench was found in Revelation 20 verse 4. The context is those beheaded for the witness of Jesus ... "neither had received his mark in their foreheads or in their hands..."

Now the verb "receive" in Revelation 20:4 is consistent with chapter 19's "actively sought" version of "receive"; as opposed to being "passively imparted with". The perplexing issue is, if one is marked with the Father's name on their forehead, how can they have the "actively sought" mark on their hand? Would not the "actively sought" mark be on their foreheads, because they aren't marked otherwise?

Looking a little more closely at "or" in verse 4 though, I discovered that it's a different word "or" than in chapter 13. The word "or" in chapter 20 is usually translated "and" not "or". It's what's listed in Greek as a "copulative conjunction" (I know, doesn't that sound weird?) which means it joins two phrases as opposed to "in", "on", "under" which are prepositions.

So, Revelation 20 gives us a little more information about those who "actively seek" the mark of the beast, that not only do they "receive" it on the forehead, but apparently also in the hand. Now in Revelation 20's verse "hand" is actually translated "hands"; yet I don't see any indication in the Greek that this word is plural. Meaning they have one "siege trench" mark on one hand and a different "actively seek" mark on the other? In Revelation 13 though, those who "passively receive" the mark receive it in their right hand.

Why the distinction between the right and left hand; I'm not sure? I know "right hand" is the hand of favor. Yet if one is forcibly imparting a proverbial mark to another's right hand because the mark giver believes they are favored that way; I suppose that would make "earthy sense". It may be a type of covert spy move upon the part of God because the enemy can't tell by mark on hand who really belongs to Whom? And if I'm correct about the second beast having connection to apostate Christianity; that would make sense. After all, we do see other examples of spies being used in the Scriptures.

 _Buying and selling with the mark of the beast:_

Now we've been talking about the fact that this beast is not a specific geo-political, economic or technological system, yet indeed has infiltrated all these systems and uses them to it's own greedy gain. Revelation 13 tells us that no one can buy or sell without either having the mark of the beast, his name, or his number. Note that the text does not say one has to have the mark to buy or sell. No, they have to have either the mark, the name, or the number.

So what does that all mean?

We've already noted how there are crowns and kings and kingdoms attached to this beast. We've also talked about how the beasts in Daniel are indeed political kingdoms. The text itself tells us that. So, making the assumption that because the geo-political realities this beast is involved in are real earthly kingdoms; I think it's a safe bet to say that the "buying and selling" Revelation 13 is talking about involves a real economic system.

So, taking a look at our current "global economy"; who knows anything about our world banking system - raise your hand!

 _ **Modern "coincidences"?**_

Here's where this all gets "scary real". All the world's currencies are tied to the American dollar. The US Federal Reserve isn't backed by anything other than it's own lick and a promise. No one is on the gold standard any more. The American government runs up debt and other countries buy that debt to "back" the American government because the American dollar is the world's currency standard. The dollar is backed by the promise of the US government to pay it's debts; but since there is no way the US government can actually pay off it's trillions of dollars of debt, it sells it off to other countries, who in turn sell it off to other countries and it just gets passed around "indefinitely". It's really a big Ponzi scheme and at this point it has gotten so bad, that I personally highly doubt that any other country is going to "call in the debts" because the United States has the largest economy in the world and if our economy goes down, planet earth goes with us. This is why the stock market did wild things when Trump was elected.

Now, all banks and banking systems are interconnected and run on the same schema. You have to pay interest to borrow money for anything (like houses and cars), plus what ever fees the banks charge for routing around and redistributing funds. What type of interest rate a person gets depends on their credit score. The better credit, the better bank terms; which means invariably that the people with poor credit end up paying more. They are the base of this Ponzi pyramid. This is how the rich get richer when investments turn back good dividends and the poor get poorer when they loose money because of crooked investment bankers, inside trading and stuff like that. Artificial inflation "bubbles" develop and when they pop, the market crashes and economies shrink and the system has to "reset" itself.

This is all based in a schema called "usury lending". This schema started in 1785 with a money lender in Germany who discovered he could make far more selling and lending to governments than individuals. His name was Mayer Amschel Bauer; which he later changed to "Rothschild".

So here is the financial aspect of this system. This "buying and selling"; and as anyone who uses money as part of their economic dealings understands, it is impossible to get away from. It is a world wide system and only 3 countries in the world today are not a part of it. They are Iran, North Korea and Cuba. In 2000 there were 4 others; Iraq, Afghanistan, Sudan and Lybia. (Thus lends some interesting insights to the current world political conflicts.)

Now isn't this all starting to look a lot like chapter 13 of Revelation? Wait! It gets better.

So, back to our first century Christian. Obviously they would not have known anything about Amschel Rothschild who was born in 1744, but would they have recognized the system? If they were familiar with 1st Century Judaism, Yes they would have, because it existed "way back then".

Remember the people Jesus threw out of the temple - the money changers! Well, here is how the system worked. Everyone at least once a year was to come to the temple to bring a sacrifice. The leadership at the time though had set up a system that forced worshipers to buy animals supplied by the system. (At an inflated price of which people would have to "borrow money" to cover the expenses of their desire to be obedient to God's commands.

Now even if you'd brought your own perfectly suitable lamb for a sacrifice, you had to exchange it for an "officially sanctioned sacrifice". This is why Jesus (after getting… seriously angry) said "My father's house is to be a place of prayer for all nations, but you have turned it into a den of thieves!"

In another place Jesus says "the love of money is the root of (the whole of / completion of) evil." Not only did the leaders of the nation hate Christ because they knew he was the Messiah, he also disturbed their little side business they had going.

* * *

Now, the next logical question is what is the name of the beast, who is the "man" who's number is 666? Well to tackle that question, we have to look at a little history.


	5. The mark and number 666

_**END TIMES?**_

 _ **Chapter 3**_

 _ **What the mark, the man and the number is NOT:**_

Now the most popular "historical" interpretation is that the beast is the Roman Catholic Church. This interpretation primarily comes out of the Protestant Reformation; which started with Martin Luther when he nailed his 95 thesis to the door of his own perish.

The next "historical" interpretation to come to us, surfaced around the same time and basically was a response from the Roman Catholic Church to the reformers who were saying Roman Catholicism was the beast of Revelation 13. This eschatological schema is called Preterism; which (with the rightful recognition that Christ has not returned yet) has various tenants of its own. (Partial and Full)

Preterists basically say that the beast, the mark, the man and his number are referring to the Roman Empire / Emperor Nero. Ironically though, to my knowledge early church writings are "silent" on their interpretation of Revelation 13. Are there records that exist somewhere that are not available to the public? That may be the case, but as far as any Internet research I've been able to do on early Christian interpretations of Revelation 13, I've come up with nothing.

Interestingly though, this Preterist interpretation that points the finger at Nero, uses a numeric system to translate Greek letters that represent numbers, into Hebrew letters that represent numbers, into Hebrew spellings of (in this case Greek) names. (Pretty confusing huh?) This system is called "Gematria". Gematria though is not a Biblical system of interpretation. No-where does God instruct people to derive interpretations this way. Gematria comes from the Kabbalah. Kabbalahic writings first began to appear about the 12th Century AD and have many similarities to astrology and the occult.

So again, taking our clues from the Scripture itself, is there anything else in the Bible that tells us anything about a name, mark, or the number 666?

 _ **Literal meaning of "mark":**_

So, I thought that maybe part of the answer might come from looking at the word itself. The Greek word "mark" used in "mark of the beast" means "gouge". It is a derivative of a military term meaning "siege trench". In ancient days, cities were built on top of hills because that made them easier to defend. Soldiers on city walls could shoot arrows at those laying siege, who were on the ground under them. So to offer themselves some protection as a counter measure to the soldiers on the walls, those laying siege would dig trenches (usually in a zig zag pattern). Siege trenches were used for centuries and even to the point where we get up to WWI, we see the defensive/protective purposes of digging trenches.

So, why would the "mark of the beast" be a "siege trench" in the realm of economic "buying and selling"? I'm not sure, but it could be that those who are passively imparted with it, are being economically sieged upon for the benefit of those who actively receive the mark and worship the beast.

 _ **The Number 666:**_

First off, to be dually noted; there are two different variants of texts used for this number. In some of the Greek texts, "six hundred three score and six" is written out in word form just as you see it here. In other texts though, the abbreviated form that uses the letters of the Greek alphabet as "short hand" for actually writing out the numbers is used instead. (chi=600, xi=60, sigma=6)

In the "short hand" version, "sigma" in Greek has come to be an obsolete character by this time of the first century writing of Revelation. The "Sigma" character has come to mean "a mark of ownership" upon the person who bears the number or character (what ever that be) noted in what ever Greek lettering context it is being used in. It was a mark used in tattoo form on soldiers and slaves to denote what master or commander they belonged to.

To fully grasp the concept of this though, one has to understand a bit about soldiers, slaves and military life. In ancient Rome, the only way a slave could become a citizen was to join the army. He had to do so with permission of the master though. If a commander took slaves in battle, often times those slaves would become incorporated into the legion that captured them. If they proved their mettle as good servants, they could become free men through joining the army. So often times they would be tattooed with the number of their legion / army commander, in order that no one could take them from their potential access to freedom and citizenship. This was true also for free born soldiers who came into the army, yet who weren't citizens either. They could not be mistaken for and taken as slaves, if they bore the mark of their Roman legion and it's commander.

Interestingly, at this point "sigma" was represented as a cross.

Notice that this use of a "mark" is of a different origin and meaning than the "siege trench" word used for the "mark of the beast".

Now keeping this in mind, let's look at the only other place in Scripture where the number 666 is used.

 _Ezra 2:13:_

Here is the only other place in the Bible that uses the number 666. This chapter of Ezra is a record of the families that are returning from Babylonian captivity. Upon return from the Babylonian captivity to Jerusalem, the people were numbered. This goes back to Exodus when God commanded Moses to count the people for census reasons. (Numbers 1:2) Interestingly, verse 3 tells the reason the census was taken after leaving Egypt. They were counted in preparation for war.

So thus we see the people are counted on both occasions coming out of captivity. In Ezra though, the text doesn't tell us that they were counted in preparation for war. Having been appointed by King Cyrus, Zerubbabel's task was to rebuild the temple. (Nehemiah's was to rebuild the wall.)

Of note: compare this to the 144,000 also "counted" (although being so great in number that no man can count them) coming out of the tribulation.

So, these 666 are the descendants of a man named Adonikam. He is a descendant of king David and he has returned from Babylon with 666 descendants; three of which are named as Eliphelet, Jeiel and Shemaiah.

Interestingly Adonikam's name means "The Lord is raised".

Eliphelet means "God is deliverance".

Jeiel means "God lives".

Shemaiah means "Yahweh hears".

So if 666 is a number from a census, what exactly does this mean?

The text of Revelation itself may actually give us the answer. The Greek in Revelation tells the wise to "calculate the (subtracted) number of the beast; the number of the man and that number is 666". The phrase "number of the man" is a definitive article. It is "the man" not "a man". So actually what the wise are instructed to do here is to calculate the number that is subtracted from the number of the beast. That number is the number of "the man" and his number is 666. Interesting huh!

 _Ezekiel 9:_

Here is the next Scripture passage that talks about marks on foreheads. The first chapter of the book of Ezekiel starts out while the people of Israel are still in captivity. "In the 5th day of the 5th year of King Jehoiachin's captivity…." God comes to Ezekiel and all through these following chapters God speaks of judgement that will befall Israel.

Chapter 8 starts out: "In the 6th year of the 6th month of the 5th day…" (Interesting - the day before 666?)

When we get to chapter 9; God tells Ezekiel to call the men who have charge over Jerusalem to come to him. One of these men has a writing utensil and ink and God tells this man to walk through all the city and mark the foreheads of all those who are walking about bewailing the loss of their idols. (They've just come back to Jerusalem from captivity in Babylon.) Than after all these are marked, God commands the other men who have charge of the city to walk through and slay all those with this mark on their foreheads.

So interestingly, in all three passages here we have people being counted and marked. The circumstance of the events revolve around the Babylonian captivity and preparing for war. Of note too; those who are doing the marking and slaying in Ezekiel are the servants of God. Those of Avonikam (The Lord is raised) are the 666.

So, what does all this tell us?

666 is apparently a census number of those separated out from the beast who belong to "the man". They don't have the mark of destruction on their foreheads because they have the name of their Father on their foreheads. They are the ones in the end, who slay those with the mark of the beast on their foreheads. "The man" who's number is 666, can only be Christ!

 _ **Chapter 3 sum up:**_

So, returning to our hypothetical 1st century Christian; it's easy to see how there is some continuity in this interpretation. It isn't divorced from history and is something a reader in the 1st century could certainly understand; since it is based in Scripture from the past.

I find it fascinating how historical context (the slaves, soldiers and the mark) fits in with the context of the book of Revelation; and also would have been something 1st century Christians would have been familiar with. Thus is just the testimony of the genius of God in the penning of the Scripture I suppose; that even the shorthand form of the numeric system used is Divinely inspired.

I think its also cool that the "sigma" was actually a cross.

* * *

 _ **Next: On to yet more information about the beast!**_


	6. Herod and the beast's heads

_**END TIMES?**_

 _ **Chapter 4**_

 _ **The Herodian Dynasty:**_

Now in the next phase of this study, we are going to look at some historical information about genealogies and ethnicities as they came down in time from the Babylonian captivity. This is going to help us identify the "genetic name" if you will, of the beast. Revelation 13:1 says that upon his heads is "the name of blasphemy". So in a rather generic yet legitimate way, we could say the beast's name is "blasphemy". We'll get to the importance of this in a future segment.

Why are the genetics important? It is important because for the most part, the only genetic line that really survived the Babylonian captivity was the line that produced Christ. Of all the tribes of Israel that came down into the 1st century AD; when God speaks of "a remnant" He speaks literally of a remnant. The only tribe that stayed of any resemblance of "in tact", was the tribe of Benjamin. So who'd supplanted the nation of Judah at the point the Babylonians had conquered the land. (The other 10 tribes had already been destroyed by the Assyrians.) Archeology tells us it was the Edomites.

 _Who is Edom?_

The Edomites were the descendants of Esau. Esau was Jacob's brother and Jacob was Abraham's grandson. Jacob had 12 sons who would become the 12 tribes of Israel. The last son born to Jacob was Benjamin. By the time we get to the end of the Babylonian captivity though, the Edomites were known to have migrated across the Persian empire from their original homeland (called Idumea by the Greeks and Romans) before Persia had been conquered by Alexander the Great. They were also known to have held positions of leadership in that empire.

The book of Daniel records for us a vision about a ram with one great horn, which is broken off and 4 other horns take it's place. (Daniel 8) The text itself tells us this ram is the Greek empire. The great horn on this ram is usually interpreted to be Alexander the Great, who's kingdom is divided among four generals after Alexander "mysteriously" dies. (He'd been wounded in a battle, but died two years later under unknown circumstances and for centuries the conspiracy theories about Alexander being murdered have been flying around the history books. He was 32 years old when he died.) Though the text in Daniel never identifies any of these horns by name (these events hadn't happened yet). I believe it is correct to interpret this first great horn as Alexander the Great and the four subsequent as his generals.

Now other than genealogies recorded for us in places like the book of Ezra; (who is coming out of the Babylonian captivity and which lineages they are from) we have no other Scriptural records of anyone's genealogy except for Jesus.

The historian Josephus, states King Herod's (the Herod who died in 4 BC) ancestors came from Idumea, which is part of the nation of Jordan today. (The city of Petra had been an Edomite city about 800 BC.)

King Herod, though he had favor with the Romans who appointed him as a client king in Judea; he really really wanted to believe that he was the Jewish Messiah. Herod had a lot of problems with his Jewish "countrymen" though. They looked at him as an outsider, which could be why Josephus felt the need to point out he was an Edomite (although at this point in history most of "Israel" was of Edomite lineage). Herod was heavily influenced by the Romans and was culturally very Hellenistic (Greek).

The actual genetic makeup of King Herod isn't really known, but the fact that he destroyed the genealogical records when he embarked upon his massive building project of making the second temple bigger; supports Josephus's claim that Herod wasn't "a full Jew" (if he was even really "a Jew" (Judean) at all). So the major "genetic problem" Herod had was that in order to be considered a "candidate" for the Messiah, you had to have been a descendent of King David; (which if Herod had been, he would not have destroyed the genealogical records which would have proved that). So thus Herod's own actions give him away.

 _ **Relevant Scripture verses about Edom:**_

Now as we go through some of the latter books of the Old Testament, we find some very interesting sayings and prophecies about Edom.

 _Ezekiel 32:_

Edom is named among about half a dozen other nations as ones who "go down into the pit" on judgement day. (Explains to us that Edom is still in existence at the end of time.)

 _Daniel 11:_

Daniel 11 gives a whole discourse about a political conflict among a line of kings in a certain succession that begins with King Darius of Persia. The discourse is easy to follow from the Persians to the Greeks until we get to a certain point. After that it gets messy and most commentaries try to force the passage to some how squeeze into historical events that don't fit.

Much of this revolves around speculation of how a certain king (Antiochus IV), fits into this passage. Although much of his exploits are well recorded in secular history, he doesn't quite fit "perfectly" into Daniel 11. Because of this, many commentators have a difficult time pinpointing who some of these kings actually are. Some of this may be because a certain portion of this prophecy is lost to historical events that aren't recorded in the secular record, (or aren't made public) or explained somewhere in the Bible. (This could be related to the genealogies Herod destroyed.) There is enough contained in the New Testament though to be able to put some of the pieces together; (which I will lay out as much as can be gleaned from the records we have in a future chapter).

For now though, the example I will give has to do with events recorded around the conflicts of these kings; where it talks about the "setting up" of the "abomination that makes desolate". It is actually talking about things related to the earthly ministry of Christ.

The "abomination that makes desolate" was "set up" at the point where King Herod the Great tries to kill Jesus. This is the 1290 days in Daniel 12:11. (It is a literal 1290 days; which commenced from the point the angel appeared to the father of John the baptist when he was in the temple and told him his wife Elizabeth would have a baby.) This angel was the first communication from God in about 400 years from the closing of the Old Testament canon to the dawn of the New Testament era.. From the day the angel appears to John's father until the angel appears to Joseph telling him to take Mary and Jesus to Egypt is 1290 days (about 3.5 years). The angel then reappears to Jospeh once Herod the Great is dead (February of 4 BC) and tells him to return to Judea. Once returning to Nazareth this is the completion of the 2300 days spoken of in Daniel 8:14.

The next verse in Daniel 12:13. Speaks of is 1335 days. 1335 days is 3.6 years; and is the commencement of John the Baptist preaching in the wilderness until Pentecost. This is connected to the 70 weeks of Daniel 9. There are 70 weeks between the time Herod Antipas kills John the Baptist and Pentecost. John the Baptist, the last of the Old Testament prophets had declared who the Messiah was and that declaration was made evident by the miracles Jesus performed.

From the point John was martyred; that signified the end of the Old Testament "era". Maybe a kind of "double whammy" from Herod the Great trying to kill Jesus some 37 years earlier. Couched within this time span is the triumphal entry into Jerusalem; which although the people welcomed Jesus as a "Hosanna, blessed is he who comes in the name of the Lord"; this commenced the leadership's plan to execute him; here by the "official" rejection of the Messiah by his nation. So since the Messiah was now "on the scene", (going all the way back to Herod the Great - they knew this); so now any animal sacrifice they performed from that point on, was the "abomination" that "made" (them) "desolate".

The portion I want to point out though, is that verse 41 talks about Edom, Moab and the chief of the children of Ammon having escaped the judgement that befell others at the time Jerusalem was destroyed in 70 AD. Again, this explains to us that Edom is still in existence at the end of time.

 _Amos 1 & 9_

This first chapter talks about the "remnant" (of Judah) being "delivered up unto Edom" and also Edom's sin of perpetuating / worsening Judah's trouble when the Babylonians came.

Chapter 9 on the other hand talks about how only a small portion of Judah is preserved in the day God will "raise up the temple" (Christ's resurrection). The rest of the nation will be totally destroyed from off the earth and interestingly verse 12 says "Israel" will "possess the remnant of Edom _**and**_ all the heathen that are called by my name."

Now what thus is the "irony" of this verse?

If the genetic descendants of Abraham (with the exception of a very small remnant of the tribe of Benjamin) are already destroyed, who is the "Israel" that will possess the "remnant of Edom and the heathen that are called by my name"? This obviously is language indicative of redemption and the "Israel" named here is probably a reference to Christ, but note that the passage relays a particular group of people as "the remnant of Edom" (besides the heathen that are called by His name). So what this passage is actually telling us is that the "Jews" of Jesus day, for the most part were actually descendants of Esau.

 _Obadiah 1:_

This chapter is similar in language and flavor to Amos 1 and 9 concerning what it says about Edom and "Israel". It talks about how Edom persecuted Judah in the days of the captivity. There are real parallels between this passage and the "Jews" who crucified Christ.

 _Lamentations 4:_

This reference, though it comes in book order before any of the others; I put it last because on account of the time chronology it refers to in human history. Take note of verses 21 and 22: "Rejoice and be glad, O daughter of Edom, that dwells in the land of Uz; the cup also shall pass through unto thee: thou shalt be drunken, and shalt make thyself naked. The punishment of thine iniquity is accomplished, O daughter of Zion; he will no more carry thee away into captivity: he will visit thine iniquity, O daughter of Edom; he will discover thy sins." This language looks an awful lot like "Babylon mother of harlots" in Revelation.

As we put all this together and look at the racial tensions in Judea in the 1st century, that concerned groups like the Samaritans, Syrophoenicians, etc., and even Paul making a reference to his own lineage as being "a Jew of the Jews, of the tribe of Benjamin"; we can understand why this conflict existed.

So what happened to all these people by 70 AD when the temple was destroyed?

Part of that answer comes to us from secular historical sources and part of it comes from the Scripture. Jesus warned the masses that when they saw the armies surrounding Jerusalem to flee. Get away from the city, get out of the area. Those that heeded Christ's instructions obviously survived. Even a particular person who was of God's elect (who was not listening to the Holy Spirit and therefore had his butt hauled out of Jerusalem by the Romans - ehhem - Paul) survived. The remainder were killed by the Roman army.

The last hold out of the "first" Roman Jewish wars was a fortress Herod the great had built called Masada (means "foundation support"; Mossad (Israel's version of the CIA) name is a variant of this word). Masada was besieged upon somewhere between 72 and 74 AD and all those left inside committed mass suicide as opposed to being captured by the Romans. There were two Roman Jewish wars that followed (the second was a series of small skirmishes) and the final revolt was from 132-136 AD. This revolt resulted in a full scale assault by 6 Roman legions which basically wiped Judea off the map. The Romans renamed the area "Palestine".

Now there are many beliefs of a Zionistic bent; (Zionism is a political movement much like "radical Islam"; which both operate pretty much under the same methodologies.) which claims the ethnic group loosely referred to today as "the Palestinians" are the (dreaded) descendants of Edom. Ironically though, truth is often a victim of the shades there of; for "genetically speaking", at this point any ethnic group "indigenous" to the middle east is such a mix of different groups that one could reasonably argue that yes indeed there is such a thing as an ethnicity called "Palestinian". "Edom", like "Ammon" and "Moab" and even the Arabs are "all over the map", for when ever and where ever there are "captivities" and mass migrations, there is always ethnic mixing. I'm sure there were descendants of Edom who ended up in Turkey, mixed with groups who had European and Mongolian lineage, who'd eventually become the Khazars. The Khazars are the ancestors of today's Ashkenazi Jews; who approximate about 90% of the modern Jewish population and at this point, cease to be Semitic at all.

So, let's return to the beast here a minute as it relates to King Herod:

 _ **The Beast's 7 heads:**_

So having excised ourselves of this Gematria / Kabbalah method of interpreting Revelation's 666 and looking elsewhere for the identity of these kings. It seems reasonable to me that the "5 kings fallen, the one that is and the one to come", are a reference to the Herodian dynasty not the Caesars. (Besides the fact that there are too many Caesars to fit the prophecy before 70 AD when the temple is destroyed; but there is exactly the right amount of Herods who became kings!)

1\. _**Herod the Great (ruled 37 BC - 4 BC)**_

This is the king that killed all the children under 2 in Bethlehem. He died in 4 BC (Jesus was born in 7 BC and returned to Nazareth from Egypt after Herod died.)

His kingdom was divided among 4 sons: (4th son Herod II didn't rule over any territory)

2\. _**Herod Archelaus (ruled 4 BC - 6 AD; died 18 AD)**_

He was deposed in 6 AD and Joseph and family went to Galilee as opposed to Judea because of Archelaus. This is the area Pontius Pilate would come to proctor over.)

3\. _**Herod Antipas (ruled 4 BC - 39 AD)**_

This Herod ruled until his death and he is the one who beheaded John the Baptist and feared Jesus was John come back from the dead. This was the Herod at Jesus's trial

4\. _**Philip the Tetrarch (ruled 4 BC - 34AD)**_

5\. _**Agrippa I (ruled 41 AD - 44 AD)**_

He is one of the Agrippa(s) in the book of Acts. The book of Acts describes his death actually as being struck down by God. (Acts 12:21-23)

6\. _**Herod Chalcis (ruled 41 AD - 48 AD)**_

(This Herod I believe is the 6th Herod referred to in Revelation.)

7\. _**Agrippa II (ruled 48 AD - 92 AD)**_

This is the Herod Paul stood before who said "You've almost persuaded me to become a Christian."

The last Agrippa to rule is Agrippa II. He dies around 100 AD and he's the last Herod (the 7th king) to have ruled in any of the Jewish provinces. Yes, I realize this would put the dating of the writing of Revelation between 44 and 48 AD.)

* * *

 _ **Up next: heads and blasphemies.**_


	7. Speaking blasphemes & Nero?

**End Times?**

 _ **Chapter 6**_

 _ **Heads and "speaking blasphemes":**_

So what of this "head" on this beast "speaking blasphemes against God" who was "slain with the sword" and than restored?

Now as we start looking at and considering the statements and ideas that will follow; one thing to keep in the back of our minds is that the single most predominant feature of this beast is its blasphemy. It blasphemes God, His Name (proper name wherewith God is known by), His tabernacle (on earth) and those that dwell "tabernacle" in heaven:

The Beast specifically blasphemes:

 _God the Father_

 _Jesus Christ_

 _The living believers who are within the earthy church_

 _Deceased believers (which may also include angels, beasts etc. i.e. those who dwell in the presence of God)._

Blaspheme as illustrated in the New Testament is pretty specific. The most common reference is "blaspheme against the Holy Spirit"; which is to believe/state Jesus was of the devil.

Now that being said; every religion on earth with the exception of one, will esteem Jesus Christ as a prophet, a teacher, or at the very least - someone who's made some sort of contribution to humanity. Muslims will say he was a prophet. Hindus, Buddhists, Taoists, Confucius's, etc. will say he was a teacher. Communists, Darwinists, Atheists will admit he was a real historical figure that started a religion; (commonly giving some reason for disliking Christianity although usually not stating a particular dislike for Jesus the "historical figure"). Even Satanists who often express a distain for Christ, do so more out of a distain for God's holiness than a personal dislike for Jesus "the historical figure". Only Rabbinic Judaism displays a hatred directed specifically at Jesus himself. Now of course there are Jewish synagogues and Rabbis of different flavors who may hold a neutral, or even positive view of Jesus (Messianic Jews); but for any who follow the Talmud, they display a distinct hatred for Jesus himself. Now most will not be vocal about it and some will deny these things are part of the Talmud; but anyone who does an Internet search on what is actually in the Talmud will find that these defamatory teachings are there.

 _ **Kingdoms committing blaspheme?**_

First thing to be noted from verse 1 is that _**all**_ of these heads are committing blaspheme. There are 7 heads, ten horns and ten crowns. Now the text isn't specific enough to explain to us how these heads, horns and crowns are divided up and arranged; nor is it specific enough to say there are ten horns on each of the 7 heads or 10 crowns on each of the 10 horns. We know there are 7 heads, 10 horns and 10 crowns; but also that the heads are on the beast and the horns and crowns are on the heads. We can also deduce from the book of Daniel that horns breaking off and growing other horns is indicative of successive kings or rulers in a particular empire, whom from a historical perspective are not related to each other; (I.E. The "Greek" ram in Daniel. Alexander's generals were not blood relatives.) although we are not told that this is the case with any of these horns on this beast in Revelation. The heads on the other hand, as related to the Herodian dynasty, obviously they were all related, many of the Herods ruled simultaneously and their reigns overlapped each other.

So, although we do not see a "succession" of horns or crowns; I think it is reasonable to conclude that the horns and crowns on this beast are representative of geo-political kingdoms that "grow out of" these 7 heads. Other than the 7 heads (whom the Herodian dynasty "fits" well into) what kings or kingdoms do these represent? I'm not sure we have a way of specifically figuring it out because we are not given any information about time references for the appearances of these horns or crowns; (other than one of the _**heads**_ is fatally wounded and is later healed). The most logical explanation would seem to be that, those who would be "the descendants" of "Herod" throughout history would be (at least in part) who make up these horns and crowns (seeing how they are "growing" off the heads of this beast).

Now Revelation 17 gives us more information about this beast's heads. Verse 9 says the 7 heads are 7 mountains on which the woman sits. (This makes contextual sense as 7 kings are ruling Jerusalem which was a city sitting on 7 mountains. After the siege of Jerusalem though; the lower parts of the valleys got leveled and filled in.

The 7 mountains are still noticeable though: Mount Scopus (mount of the sentinel), Mount of Olives, Mount of Corruption, Mount Ophel (mount of the tower) and Mount Zion (mount of the dry place - some times interpreted as "tomb", or mount of the sign post - both would "fit" contextually speaking, as redemption is the "sign post" of the empty "tomb".)

Now later on in this study; I will address the rest of Revelation 17 and what Scripture seems to be presenting these 10 kings as.

 _ **Nero?**_

From a historical perspective, this question ties into the assertion of the Preterists that this miraculously healed head of the beast is a reference to the emperor Nero. So let's take a look at him for a minute.

The idea that Nero would return at some point is part of what's referred to as the "Nero Redivivus Legend". Historically speaking, it partially springs out of the ambiguous circumstances of Nero's death. There were pockets of Roman society who believed he'd not actually died, but was in exile some place and would return to reclaim his emperorship at a future date.

Now obviously for Christians of that era, this was a big fear because Nero was one of the most aggressive emperors in his persecution of the church. So yes, I'm sure there were people in the early church "waiting in the wings" so to speak, to see if Nero did make a reappearance. Now whether or not they would have believed that to be a fulfillment of prophecy is another question.

As history tells us though, Nero never did return; which automatically eliminates him from being a candidate for this head of the beast in Revelation. By the time we get to the destruction of the temple in 70 AD, this Nero Redivivus Legend ceases to be of any interest in the "mainline" orthodox church. Matter of fact, Nero never was much of an interest prophetically speaking for the mainline orthodox church. This Nero Redivivus legend was more of a tenant held to by Gnostics than it was by the orthodox church.

Beside this point, if Revelation really was written before 48 AD, Nero would have been of no consequence whatsoever, since his reign didn't start until 54 AD. Claudius, who is the 4th emperor is the one reigning between 41 and 54 AD. By the time we get to the destruction of the temple, 4 emperors have ruled in 69 AD alone. So, obviously if there are only 7 heads on this beast, that's too many Roman emperors.

So, where did this Nero Redivivus Legend come from? It actually has its roots in Jewish mythology. The first "alleged" mention of the legend comes from the Sibylline Oracles. Portions of these oracle writings have their origins in Hellenistic Jewish and Greek traditions (mythology) that probably dates at least to the 1st century. Many of these had been revised and embellished upon through the following centuries and we don't see the first "completed works" compiled until the 4th to 5th century AD. Actual authorship is unknown since these writings have been edited by various groups throughout the centuries. Sibyl was allegedly a Jewish female prophetess who uttered divine prophecies in a frenzied state, which according to some sources; she lived at some point after the Babylonian captivity but before the birth of Christ.

 _ **Why Jewish Legends?**_

So, given all of this; I think it's fair to ask why all these interpretations and methods of interpretation for the book of Revelation are coming to us out of the writings of post Babylonian captivity Jewish folklore? Also, why do we not see any historical evidence of these interpretations until we hit about the 4th century AD and later? Which "ironically" was about the time the Talmud(s) appeared as complete written artifacts in history.

 _(There are two bodies of writings that make up the "source material" of the Talmud; the Jerusalem and the Babylonian. These are "commentaries" on the Mishnah (the oral law) which was allegedly passed from Moses to Aaron. Legend has it that the Mishnah began to be penned for Marc Anthony (probably somewhere between 44 and 33 BC).) The New Testament makes reference to the Mishnah as "the traditions of men"; but it is unclear how much (if any) had been written down by the time of the resurrection.)_

Am I not the only one who sees this as odd in the context of Scriptural prophecy and Biblical interpretation; especially coming from a nation and people who deny the Messiah who was "allegedly" physically birthed from their ancestors?

* * *

 _ **Next up - how the history of Zionism ties into all of this!**_


	8. History of Zionism part 1

**History of Zionism part 1**

 _I realized after I started writing this that it's quite long,_

 _so it will be chopped up into smaller increments._

* * *

So, just like our global economy and banking system? Who knows anything about the history of Zionism; raise your hand!

 _ **Other Modern Interesting "Coincidences":**_

Contrary to what you may have been told in church; Zionism is a political movement that first appeared about the 1870's. Prior to that, Jewish belief was that no one was to return to the promised land until the Messiah appeared. The basic tenant was that the people were to follow the Messiah back into the promised land. (Now the prevailing belief is that once all are regathered in "the holy land"; then the Messiah will "make his appearance".) There is a large swath of Orthodox Judaism that still believe the original historical interpretation and many of these adherents march every year in New York City _**AGAINST**_ the state of Israel; in protest of it's treatment of the Palestinians. (Don't believe me? Look it up on YouTube "Jews against Israel".)

The modern church has a variant of this (return to the promised land) belief that is part of the overall arching umbrella of Zionism. This was articulated to the American Christian world most predominantly by a referenced Bible edited (at least in part) by a Cyrus Ingerson Scofield. The Scofield Reference Bible's copyright is actually owned by the Jewish publisher Oxford Press; of which this Bible has gone through several revisions since Scofield's death. Revisions which include reference to "blessing" the nation of Israel that Scofield could not have made himself, seeing how he died in 1921 (28 years before Israel ever existed).

The Scofield Reference Bible has been used extensively to promote the Zionist agenda, much to the end result that most of it's adherents now see the nation of Israel as a fulfillment of God's promise to Abraham "in you shall all nations be blessed". They fail to see that Christ is the fulfillment of the promise to Abraham, not some chunk of land in the middle-east.

More on Scofield later.

 _ **So how did this Zionist agenda unfold?**_

 _ **Post 70 AD Migrations:**_

One thing I didn't mention when talking about Rothschild's and the banking system, was the origins of the Rockefeller's. I didn't mention this earlier because I just learned this myself.

Now there are some conspiracy theorists who say the Rockefeller family is also Jewish, yet after doing a bit of research; I'd found that this is not the case. The confusion comes out of a book who's first addition appeared in 1958 (2nd 1972, 3rd 1978) entitled Americans of Jewish Descent. This book was a genealogical research conducted by a Rabbi Malcolm Stern, in which he names the Rockefeller's.

It wasn't particularly clear to me where the confusion stemmed from, only that there had been a Rockefeller (the son of one of John D's brothers) who'd married a Jewish woman. Even at that though, that particular line of Rockefeller's was not of the lineage of the famous oil family; so where this alleged ethnic background of the whole family being Jewish came from, I don't really know? (Was it implied by the conspiracy theorists, or the rabbi himself?) The Rockefeller's are German though and their lineage can be traced back to 1500's and the town they got their name from. (Rockenfeld)

I bring up the Rockefeller's for a couple of reasons. First off, apparently from this book on genealogies, there are those who believe (both in and outside of the "Jewish international power structure"), that there are "Jews" who "pretend" to be Christians when in the "outside world" but are "wholly sold out" to the "Jewish power structure" when they are "with their own kind". John D though was an unwavering Baptist and at least from the outside, he appears to have held strong philanthropic convictions. Now someone who's dug more deeply into the Rockefeller's history may know more than I do about the family; which is fine, seeing how the motivation behind the Rockefeller's endeavors are outside of the scope of this Bible study.

The Rockefeller's though have strong ties to the Bush family and other "secret societies" that are suspect of being part of this entire global power structure apparatus. This network of governments, economies, banking systems etc. that bears uncanny resemblance to this beast in Revelation 13, has "absorbed" all sorts of people.

So with that in mind, I think its necessary to point out that this entire beast system does not rest solely on the shoulders of a particular ethnic or religious group. Although the Zionist agenda may be a main driving factor in the operation and operational practices of this beast; Rabbinic Jews are not the only "movers and shakers" in the system. People like Rockefeller, Carnegie, Morgan, various royal families and political powers who run world policies are all willing (and sometimes unwilling) participants. So, to what ever extent those who have "borrowed" the tactics that have made them big names in the system have done so; they too are "guilty as charged".

So, let's get back to the history of Zionism a bit here and lay some ground work.

At the end of the Roman Jewish wars, when what few surviving (decedents of Edom) were dispersed. Some went north (with the conversion of the Khazars, becoming the Ashkenazi's) and others went south across the northern portion of Africa. This group though did not have a "mass conversion" of people to Rabbinic Judaism. Because of differences in ethnic origins, they are what is now called the "Sephardic Jews" and they make up the bulk of the remaining 10% of modern Jews. The Sephardic group though is probably the most racially diverse, as it has elements of Semitic as well as European, northern and sub-Saharan African claimants to it's lineage.

The "Ethiopian Jews", as they are often referred to, have traditions that say they go all the way back to Solomon and the Queen of Sheba. This may be true; (some form of Judaism brought back to the Ethiopian people because of the Queen of Sheba) but I have not studied that specifically, so I can not verify the claims either way. All such types of traditions though are usually couched in some form of truth; (India has a similar tradition about the apostle Thomas coming to the Indian people) so I would not automatically discount the possibility. The Ethiopian Christian traditions have the same history and Ethiopia with her people are mentioned at several points in both the Old and New Testaments.

So, to conclude the information about the origin of the "Rockefeller myth"; the Sephardic group traveled across Northern Africa, dispersing at various points along the way and finally coming into Spain. Now someone had allegedly uncovered a letter by one of the Rockefeller's stating that they'd been kicked out of Spain (When Queen Isabella expelled all the Jews from Spain) and went to Turkey (which was where a large number of the Sephardic's went) before moving again to France and finally to the United States. The anthropological and genealogical sources don't support this story though, Seeing how the Rockefeller's German genealogy predates Isabella's expulsion order.

The Mizrahim Jews (who comprise the 3rd largest group) being those who never left the middle-east; of which I'm making an educated guess here, that their genetic background would be the most Semitic, considering their geographical proximity to Arabs as well as Edomites. These are what might historically be called "Babylonian Jews", or "Palestinian Jews".

 _ **1870's - Changing ideologies among European Jews.**_

Zionism somewhat started as a concept loosely thrown around because of mounting pressure Jews were feeling socially in Europe; (which some of this was tied to the issue of usury lending as it began to sweep across national boarders and Jews were being driven out of countries; many of whom at various points made their way to North America).

Another aspect was the Christian revivals that periodically swept through parts of Europe from the mid 18th century on, causing both Jew and Gentile to become born again; thus "stealing Jews" from their Rabbinic religion. Many European Jews in the mid to late 19th and early 20th centuries began to see Christianity as more favorable both socially and economically, as well as in some cases "morally superior" to their own customs / religious teachings. So the idea of a "Jewish homeland" began to be appealing to those Jewish leaders (both economic and "religious") who did not want to loose "Jewish numbers" to Christian conversions.

Although I'm sure there were numbers of converts who's conversions were born out of honest conviction; due to the spreading influence of Darwinian ideas, much of the "conversions" we see too, were what I'd call a "sociological side effect" to the concept of "superiority" of the "survival of the fittest". Darwin's ideas didn't just affect people's perceptions of the physical world, they also spilled over into perceptions of the value of civilizations. Adopting the "superior civilization" was very en-vogue in that era and this meant "whole sale" adoption of whom ever displayed the greatest power at the time. This was not a phenomena of Europe only though, we see this with several Native American tribes (or segments thereof) as well as Africans.

Also, the 17th through 19th centuries being the era of nation / empire building began a growth in the various populations of the concept of nationalism and national identity. This created a mindset among Jews who were within the Austrian / Hungarian / German empires, that nationality became more important to them than Judaism. The percentile of people who identified themselves as Jewish was larger in the Germanic empires than it was in Britain and France.

* * *

In the next segment I will be dealing with the 20th century. This too may end up being divided up into multiple chapters.


	9. Zionism 2 Protocols part 1

**History of Zionism part 2**

 _ **(Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion part 1)**_

Now as we get into the 20th century, a lot of pieces of political puzzle begin to take shape. This next segment on Zionism will discuss the first in a series of documents and political movements that are connected to, or believed to be connected to Zionism. These documents and political movements are also the source of most modern conspiracy theories about a Jewish power elite global agenda.

* * *

 _ **The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion:**_

 _(Bear with me here, this one is complicated and has a lot of "separate moving parts".)_

For those who are not familiar with this particular work; "The Protocols" is a document of hotly debated origin. In one camp are those who believe it originated with the Jewish elite power structure as a manual of how to take over the world. In the other camp are those who claim it's a forgery, who's real origins are simply propaganda of an anti-Semitic counter-revolutionary Russian author named Matvie Golvinski. (I'll get into his story in a minute / more later.)

"The Protocols" is a political piece that has been translated into multiple languages and is probably one of the most (if not the most) influential and (probably most) widely read political pieces of the 20th century. Some literary scholars equate it to "political satire literature" with a message of warning, along the lines of George Orwell's book 1984. 1984 has a lot of similarities to "The Protocols", of which I'm sure Orwell was at least familiar with this piece.

"The Protocols" are alleged by some to be a forgery, plagiarized by Matvie Golvinski and sold to an editor (Pavel Kruschevan) of the newspaper "Znamya"; which parts thereof were subsequently published in Russia in 1903. The forgery was said to be from Maurice Joly's Dialogue in Hell Between Machiavelli and Montesquieu which was published in 1864. Joly's work was alleged to be a satirical allegory, with Machiavelli substituting for Napoleon.

Interestingly though, Joly was later identified to be Joseph Levy, a Jew who was a life long member of the Mazraim Masonic Lodge in Paris. He was the protege of Adolf Cremieus (AKA Isaac Mouse Cremieus) who was the head of the lodge, as well as a minister in the Leon Gambetta (Jewish backed) government.

Joly was known to have plagiarized other works: Les Mysteries du Paris authored by Eugene Sue (1845) as well as Machiavelli, Montesquieu, Rousseau authored by another Mazraim Lodge member (Jacob Venedy) and fellow protege of Cremieux.(1850)

So, today (for various reasons) there are a minority of scholars who are suggesting Joly's "Dialogue in Hell" was actually plagiarized from "Protocols", not the other way around. These scholars do make some valid points about their position. ("Protocols" themselves claim to be centuries old.) One of these articles I read, postulating that Joly plagiarized "Protocols", was written by a Jewish professor. So, with that being said; interestingly, as we will see with other early publishers of "Protocols", Joly met an untimely death as he's said to have committed suicide in 1879.

 _ **The Masons:**_

Now to understand some of the rest of this story, we have to talk a little bit about Masonry. The Masons are a social / "para" religious group that spans many countries. Masonic legend goes back to Solomon's temple where "mason" meant "artist" of any sort of working craft, not just stone work. Masonic lodges have all sorts of "flavors". Some of the older "rites" are named for ethnic groups like "Scotch". Some are geographical areas like "York".

When the Renaissance came along, a new order of Masons began to emerge called the "Free Masons". These were the ones who began to get the reputation of "secret society" because they met in secret. The stated reason (from a Mason), being these men were coming out of the "secrets of the dark ages" into the "age of enlightenment"; so thus they were now "free" to engage all sorts of fellow brother human beings. This is where Masonic lodges began to mix peoples of different cultural and religious backgrounds who had the same social goals in common.

From the other perspective; comes those who believe Free Masons really are a secret society who's been involved in occult practices for centuries. They have valid questions too, as much of Masonic symbolism and (what little is known of) ceremonies do hearken back to ancient near eastern pagan religions; which have been intertwined into what has become portions of today's occult practices. "Occult practices" though, much like any other organized religion, are divided up into sects. Some practices and symbols cross sects. Anything I would discuss in this study though, would be things related to where ever Masons, Rabbinic Judaism, ancient pagan religions and the occult cross each other.

So, from my less the perfect understanding of the Masons, membership in Masonic lodges comes in certain degrees. Once you get past the "entered apprentice", "fellow craft", "master mason"; there are 4th degree, 5th, 6th, etc (all the way up to 32. All of which may have common names in all the rites, yet may mean different things in different rites). The higher you get up in the Masonic organization, the higher your "degree" status is. Some rites will only accept Masons of a particular degree or higher. Within those upper-echelon lodges, (historically speaking at least) they seem to have degrees of their own.

Masonry first came to France with Napoleon Bonaparte; the first lodge "officially" established in 1799. It's never been confirmed that Napoleon was a Mason, but it's not doubted either and seems highly probable given his status as a political leader. Napoleon was first exposed to Masonry in Egypt where they had an order at the time called "the rite of the Mazraim". This particular rite was closely associated with Talmudic, Kabbalahic and Gnostic teachings, which had come to be imported with it's Jewish lodge members into France. About 100 years later this lodge was combined with another American "rite of Memphis" and became the "right of Mazraim-Memphis" wherewith this particular lodge says it began to exclude teachings from the Kabbalah and the occult.

Now if I'm correctly understanding what I'd read about Masonic degrees, in order to get into the Mazraim (or now Mazraim-Memphis) rite, you have to be a ninth or tenth degree Mason. This may be of significance when looking at a particular Jewish magazine that talks about "The Protocols"; for this article specifically calls out "the newly unearthed secret documents throwing light upon the sinister world wide conspiracy of the learned elders of Zion of the third degree".

 _ **American Hebrew Magazine:**_

This article was entitled _"Our Own Protocols"_ and appeared in a Jewish magazine "The American Hebrew" dated September 10, 1920. The publication can be found on the Internet. The magazine was published in New York City, to it's own Jewish audience beginning in 1879 and is still in publication today under the name "Washington Jewish Week". This publication has gone through several revisions and mergers over the course of the past nearly 150 years before it became "Washington Jewish Week" (1984). There are several interesting things about the article " _Our Own Protocols",_ as well as the magazine which published it.

First off, this article freely confesses that "The Protocols" are a Jewish writing, yet does not convey any fondness for them, nor does it condone any sort of conspiracy to take over the world. The article states that the magazine received their copy of "The Protocols" from a friend (who was reported in the article to now be deceased); who'd received them from a woman who'd risked her life to steal a copy at the close of a gathering which had initiated new members into the group of elders / leaders of Zionism. (The predeceasing World Zionist Congress had met in 1913, yet I have no idea which meeting or organization the magazine article was making reference to.) The article goes on to authenticate "The Protocols" (of two "articles from Protocols" they published) via its use of certain language and events alleged to be known only in Jewish circles.

The second "article of The Protocols" published in this magazine article, credits the "learned elders of Zion" with creating the Mormon church. The point of which this is illustrated, appears to be on account of the fact that the founding of the Mormons far predates the alleged forgery of "The Protocols". (Mormon church 1830) I had not realized this at the point in this study that I'd written my segment on the Masons; but much of Mormon rites, rituals and symbolism are the same as those of the Masons. Joseph Smith was a Mason, as were many of the founders of the Mormon church. The Masons in Ohio had accused Joseph Smith of "borrowing" from their organization in the "revelation" of this new religion.

The Book of Mormon is also alleged to be a forgery and has many similarities to an unpublished story Manuscript Found written by the minister of a Congregationalist church living in Connecticut named Solomon Spaulding. Spaulding had been in the Continental army during the American Revolution and died in 1816; so he and Joseph Smith had never met. Ironically though, both introductions to Manuscript Found and The Book of Mormon have uncanny commonalities to another story "The Legend of Enoch", which is part of the folklore of the Masons. Well guess where "The Legend of Enoch" comes from? If you guessed the Kabbalah, you are correct. Yes, it is another tale of Jewish folklore.

The reason for "the elders of Zion" to (allegedly) form the Mormon church is unclear to me, other than attempts to give validity to the notion that Divine revelation didn't just come to the Hebrew people. Jews are often accused of being pathologically ethnocentric and exclusionary racist; (Just take a look at Israel's immigration policy for an example.) and the notion of another / new group of Jews in the new world, "brings in" certain non-European ethnic groups as also being "Jews". Any anthropologist or geneticist though can (and would) tell us that the natives on the north and south American continents are not Semitic either; (as in being genetically related to Abraham).

So while we are on "alternative Christian interpretations / writings / Bibles" and the Freemasons; I think it's fair to bring up again our aforementioned Cyrus I Schofield, the famous "author" of the Schofield Reference Bible. If you are wondering whether or not he was a Mason? To my knowledge, he wasn't: but the main financier behind his Bible was. George Bannerman Dealey was a member of Schofield's church, but was also a 33rd degree Mason.

On top of this, the two men who "mentored" Schofield in the penning of the reference Bible (Westcott and Hort) were active in the occult. B.F. Westcott and F.J.A Host were (respectively) an Anglican bishop and Oxford professor of divinity. They had started two different fraternal type groups; one called "Hermes" (Greek name for god of the underworld - i.e. Satan) which was well known in it's day for the intensity of homosexual relations between its members and the other listed as "the ghost society". Ghost Society had many British political figures among it's ranks; one of which was Britain's future prime minister Arthur James Balfour, who will be discussed later concerning the importance of a particular document that bears his name - The Balfour Declaration.

Lastly, of much importance, is another article printed in American Hebrew magazine on October 31, 1919 entitled _"The Crucifixion of Jews must Stop"_. (Also can be found in the Internet.) This article speaks of a "holocaust" and "6 million dead." I'll discuss that later too.

* * *

 _Stay tuned - the history of "The Protocols" coming next:_


	10. Zionism 3 Protocols part 2

**History of Zionism part 3**

 _ **(Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion part 2)**_

* * *

 _ **So, how did "The Protocols" come to the attention of the masses?**_

Well, finding the answer was a bit tricky because there is a lot of conflicting information, but after digging through the Internet a bit, I found some information that was "willing to name names".

The public story starts with a Justine Glinka, who was the daughter of a Russian general. She was acting as a high class spy in Paris when she obtained an original document from a Jewish freemason named Joseph Schorst in 1884. Glinka paid Schorst $2500. franks for the document. After having sold her this document, Schorst fled to Egypt. According to French police archives, he had been tracked down and murdered. (Also of note: Solomon Rothschild (Lord Rothschild's son) was a freemason belonging to a French lodge.)

Glinka then forwarded her discovery to her handler General Orgevskii, in St. Petersburg, who gave it to a General Cherevin, who in turn was suppose to give it to the Czar. Cherevin though is said to have been in debt to certain wealthy Jews, so therefor he did not turn the document over to the Czar.

When Justine Glinka returned to Russia, she was banished to her family estate, by the Czar for allegedly publishing lurid accounts of Russian aristocrats "dirty laundry" in a book entitled Count Vassilii. Glinka was later cleared of the accusation, after it was discovered that real author was Juliette Adam, a French feminist devoted to the "philosophy" of theosophy (a tenant of spiritism religion) and the occult.

Despite these "misunderstandings", Glinka passed on a copy to a man; Alexis Sukhotin. He in turn passed copies to two friends: Philip Stepanov and Sergei Nilus. Stepanove had his own copies printed and was circulating them privately by 1897, although it was well known by the early 1890's that tracts and essays of similar content were already circulating among the Russian nobility. Nilus on the other hand, began to print this information publicly with the intent that the masses would read it.

Sergei Nilus was a Russian Orthodox monk. He was a "prodigal son" type individual who had a very similar conversion / introduction to the life of a monk as did St. Augustine back in the 4th century AD. Nilus first wrote The Great within the Small in 1901, which was a book of "prophetic" writings of what Nilus saw would become the future of Russia. He'd also stated in that work, that he believed this was the beginning of the end of the world. In the back of this book, he appendixes portions of "The Protocols".

The second publication to hit the masses came in 1903, in the form of articles in a Russian newspaper which again published portions of the "Protocols". These are the alleged forgeries said to be written by Matvie Golvinski, printed by editor Pavel Kruschevan of the newspaper "Znamya". (I'll discuss Kruschevan and what was going on in the media at the time in a minute.)

Ironically though, Matvie Golvinski had an interesting outcome that was very different than the editor's fate, or that of Sergie Nilus, or even Justine Glinka. Golvinski the "forger" of the "rabidly anti-semitic" Protocols as it turns out, was pardoned by the overwhelmingly Jewish lead Bolsheviks, for "flip flopping" sides a couple of times and went on to live out a comfortable / happy life as a Soviet bureaucrat under Stalin. Hum, now isn't that interesting?

Justine Glinka on the other hand; (formally known as Yuliana) was born in 1844 and died in 1918. (74 years old) Although I have not been able to find any record of how she died, or whether or not she had been arrested by the Bolsheviks? That would be a good assumption, looking at the year of her death and the fact that she was closely associated as a supporter of the Czar.

Sergie Nilus; (which is not believed to be his real name) in 1905 published the first completed works for the masses, under the title The Jewish Peril - Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion.

In 1917, he went on to attempt to publish a revision of his first work, but was arrested by the interim government, before the Bolsheviks actually took over. A couple of copies of his second addition had been smuggled out of Russia, one of which had made it's way into the British archives by 1920, (translated into English by 1924).

Sergie Nilus died of a heart attack in 1929 and was imprisoned three times (1924, 1925 & 1927 respectively). I know he spent some time in the gulag system and I believe he died there, but I'm not 100% sure on that. It is alleged that the judge at his 1924 trial had said that Nilus's being imprisoned and subject to torture, was to repay him for exposing the agenda in printing "the Protocols". Now I don't know if this is true, for my lack of ability to find hard documentation on this story.

It is stated in multiple sources though, that mere possession of "the Protocols" in 1917 would have gotten one shot on the spot. By the early 20's, possession of any of Nilus's publications was a crime punishable by up to 10 years in the gulag system. Nilus's works were labeled specifically as "anti Bolshevik" propaganda.

 _ **Issues reaching back into history:**_

Zanamya's editor Pavel Kruschevan (who was actually the founder of the newspaper - which is listed on Wikipedia as an "ultra-nationalistic" / "anti-Semitic" paper in favor of the Czar) was printed in St. Petersburg between 1902 and 1906?. Kruschevan launched another paper in 1906 entitled "Friend", which seems to have replaced this one). He mysteriously disappears from history in 1909.

1903 though didn't just see the publication of portions of "Protocols" from Kruschevan, but also another story about a 14 year old Russian boy named Mikhail Rybachenko who was found murdered on Thursday February 13th of 1903.

According to an investigation by Russian authorities, Mikhail had been seen with his grandparents at church the previous Sunday. One witness had then stated that he'd seen the boy go into a Jewish store to buy tobacco. Mikhail's body was found by a townsman 4 days later in a garden covered with many bruises and multiple stab wounds to the major arteries. People of the town believed this to be a "blood libel" case; (Blood Libel - belief that there are adherents to Rabbinic Judaism who sacrifice Christian children as part of the Passover.) of which this story spread though neighboring towns and cities, sparking riots which began on Easter Sunday April 12th, 1903.

The murder was investigated by several parties (governmental and independent - one of which was a Jewish doctor "corner" who'd performed the first autopsy; his report having been supported by a Christian doctor who agreed the murder was not ritually sacrificial) and although it may have been "set up" by the real perpetrator to look like a blood libel case; it wasn't. (One obvious discrepancy being Passover began on March 30th in 1903, a whole month and 1/2 after the murder. I'll talk about this in a minute.) Although there had been several "witnesses" that perjured themselves during the course of the investigation, all claiming it to be a blood libel case. The murderer was later found to be a relative of the boy, who'd stand to inherit Mikhail's grandfather's estate should Mikhail pass away.

Pavel Kruschevan though, had reported in his newspaper that these Easter time riots were sparked by this case that was believed to be (or "insinuated as") blood libel. Now I don't know what was actually published in the paper? I did a search of the Internet to see if there was an actual picture of the news article, but did not find a copy of the paper. I do know though that Kruschevan's was not the only paper who reported these riots as being sparked by a blood libel / possible blood libel case(s). There was another story circulating at the time about a girl who died in a Jewish hospital of poisoning. As it turned out, her poisoning was self inflicted.

Consequently, Kruschevan was stated to have had many death threats, attempts on his life and much trouble after these publications hit the news stands. Most of the information about him that is on the Internet, comes from the "other perspective" saying he was an anti-Semite, racist bigot etc., who got into fights and had legal problems with slander and the such like. He is said to have carried a weapon, hired body guards, as well as a personal cook, whom he'd only eat food prepared from for fear / threat of poisoning. Though he is claimed to have been a violent, ill tempered man; yet he is recorded to have held the political office equivalent to the the mayor of a city for about 5 years prior to his mysterious disappearance. Also, the "other perspective" credits him for inciting the riots which are referred to as "Kishinev pogroms" (where it is alleged that the Russian government failed to protect the Jews from physical harm and property crime).

Now I've tried to be as neutral as possible in reporting this information about "The Protocols" and those first involved in their distribution, because there is always two sides to every story. Nothing happens in a vacuum either though and so now what follows here is a portion of yet another side of the story.

 _ **Attempts to Garnish Support for Zionism:**_

Now Krushchevan, the Romanov Dynasty and all of Russia was not engaged in an unfounded and pointless anti-semitic propaganda campaign with the publication of "The Protocols" and the stories of these murders. The Russo-Jewish Committee (RJC) was also conducting a whole sale propaganda campaign of its own against Russia, in order to attempt to garnish support for the idea of creating a political Jewish homeland.

Starting in the 1880's and pretty much running through to the Bolshevik Revolution, Britain and the US were constantly being fed information through the presses as to how life in Russia was so horrendous for the Jews. (New York Times, London Times & Jewish World - The Jewish World being the paper that furnished most of these stories.)

The first stories began "rolling off the presses" from an "on location" journalist who was allegedly traveling all over Russia and witnessing these horrendous acts first hand. There were many accounts of riots, destruction of property murders of Jews and especially accusations of mass rape being printed in American and British newspapers. All of this was couched in language of "act now", "save Russian Jewelry before it's too late", "there's a holocaust going on", "millions are starving" etc.

This instigated the people in Britain to start petitioning their government to intervene. Being slow to want to get involved though, the British government first launched an investigation into these stories when they began to surface in the 1880's. The British consulate sent several independent investigators; all of whom reported back to the crown; that outside of some incidents of property damage, minor injuries to a small number of people and a few who'd succumbed to death as a result of injuries from isolated rioting; there were no mass murders, (matter of fact there weren't actually any murders) no one was starving to death and certainly no mass rapes. At least 3 independent investigators (Consul-General Stanley, Consul-General Law and Colonel Francis Maude) compiled information from their findings and published "Blue Book" in 1884.

When this information hit the public, the London Times responded in a subversive and rather bizarre manner, stating that the indignation of the country is still justified even if the atrocities were "creations of popular fancy".

This I imagine was rather confusing for the people and aggravating for the consulate. Stanley had demanded an answer from the Russo-Jewish Committee / London Times regarding their continued printing of these now debunked stories; especially since he personally had put a lot of his own resources into the investigations to ensure that they were accurate. To this the RJC responded by appealing directly to "the wise and noble people of England," who "will know what weight should be attached to such denials and refutations." So though the RJC did end up winning the sway on popular opinion, they never did convince the British government to intervene.

So in this propaganda war that had already been waging for 10 years against the Romanov dynasty, the Russian papers began to roll out their own versions of things; setting some "historical context" to the alleged "raging anti-semitism" in Czarist Russia. (You really want anti-Semitism, we'll give people a reason to hate you.)

So thus also the reason European powers did not respond to the alleged "Kishinev pogroms", seeing how they'd already been burned by the Jewish press in the 1880's. Keep this in mind too as we get into the 1930's and WWII, with the question so often raised today of European powers' failure to respond to what was allegedly happening in Germany's concentration camps.

* * *

So with that rather long segment and it's "many moving parts"; next (before I resume with the 20th century) I will move on to another historical issue which has plagued Judaism for at least two millennia. Human ritual sacrifice or "blood libel".


	11. Blood libel

**Ritual Human Sacrifice**

Now I think it goes without say, that anyone who's studied history or anthropology knows ritual human sacrifice is a world wide occurrence. It has been practiced in a variety of cultures around the globe. In subsets of societies today there are individuals who still do this. The most obvious difference today though is that (to my knowledge) it is not legal in any society. So when it does occur, once the perpetrators are apprehended they are prosecuted by the laws of the land the crime was committed in; most often tried for murder.

* * *

 _ **Blood Libel:**_

So this is not an issue unique to Judaism, although the term "blood libel" is; of which has a specific definition. Blood libel as such, usually entails the sacrifice of non-Jews (primarily Christians) for the purpose of using their blood as part of the Passover by mixing it into the unleavened bread and consuming it.

Now Jewish ritual murder is an extremely unpopular subject, especially in the west. It's "politically incorrect" to discuss; and just bringing up the subject in some western countries may land one in jail, so thus I tread these waters as circumspectly, yet as honestly as possible.

Most of the records concerning Jews who were tried and executed for such crimes, are locked away in the Vatican archives. There are records of cases that were actually tried in the courts of secular rulers and at least one appeal, that I'm aware of, that was tried in multiple courts.

How often this really happened, no one knows and I would not postulate to guess. As per those caught and tried for these crimes? In 15 or so centuries, "I'm aware of no less than 240" recorded occurrences (as compiled by 18th century historian Adrian Kembter). These include the trials and records of 20 to 25 children contained in Vatican archives, who'd been "sainted" by the Roman Catholic Church. The church had "reversed" their rulings on these children "de-canonizing" all of them in 1965. (Vatican II) They also removed the remains of any such children that had been venerated in various churches throughout Europe and reinterred them in undisclosed locations.

Most of the recorded cases involve the sacrifice of children, (most of whom had not been "sainted") but there are court records of adults who'd been murdered for this purpose also. The manner in which the killings were recorded to have occurred varied a bit depending on the age of the victim. Most were crucified (usually upside down) and were punctured multiple times until they bled to death. Adults would often have their throats slit, whereas male children were either circumcised first, or had their genitalia removed altogether.

After the ritual was over, the victims were often discarded either in wells, gardens, the streets or a near by wooded area. Bodies that were found with injuries consistent one to another (puncture wounds and genital mutilation) which showed up especially around the time proximity of Easter usually sparked riots. Most often today, the western media reports riots that surface around Easter time with no other context but; "accusations of Jews killing Christ". Historically though, that was usually not the whole truth.

Now how many were legit blood libel cases as opposed to "set ups" wasn't always clear either, but there were cases where the perpetrators voluntarily confessed, or other members of the Jewish community (family members or children who witnessed these crimes and / or Christian / Islamic converts from Judaism) would confirm such type occurrences did actually happen. (In one case the wives of two rabbis turned them in, in other cases participants children came forward.) Many have noted that those who did these things were aberrations of Judaism, which I would agree with as a general principle; yet there seems to be enough in both numbers and consistency to raise legitimate questions as to how large the ritual murder cult(s) really is / are.

 _ **Blood libel reasonings:**_

The next most obvious question is why? Well in 1938 a British researcher Dr. Arnold Leese published a book entitled My Irrelevant Defense being Meditations inside Gaol and out on Jewish Ritual Murder where he describes that according to a Jewish convert to Christianity named Theobus, the Jews would take blood from a Christian child once a year because they believed that without so doing, they could never obtain their freedom and return to Palestine. (Although Jews were already returning to Palestine by 1938 and some had been in the middle east for thousands of years.) Theobus had explained that the choice of who in a given circle, was to select the victim and obtain the blood was drawn by lots.

Next question; is there any collaborating evidence from Talmudic writings that this type of thing was rationalized as being necessary / needed for what ever reason? One 19th century book that addresses this question was written by Sir Richard Francis Burton in his work Human Sacrifice among the Sephardim. His research was backed by other information coming out of the middle-east that was disclosed by a former Jew who'd converted to Islam. This man was named Al-Muslimani and the information he'd relayed made up part of another work which was a partial manuscript of Burton's first, although this one was entitled The Jew, the Gypsy and El Islam.

A third book came out of the middle-east, also written by a Muslim historian and researcher, Mustafa Tlass; entitled Matzo of Zion. Tlass was a history professor and a member of the Syrian Academy. Much of Tlass's research extensively documented the case of a Roman Catholic priest named Father Thomas, who'd been the victim of a ritual murder. This was also referred to as The Damascus Incident in a book written by a Jewish historian Johnathan Frankel, who was attempting to refute the account Tlass had recorded. Yet in the end, two separate individuals who obviously had knowledge of the event, independently led researchers to Father Thomas's body, which had been found dismembered and thrown into a sewer behind a Rabbi's home. Tlass had also successfully petitioned the French government for the investigative police/embassy records of the incident, since Father Thomas was a French citizen.

Another source of information Al-Muslimani cited concerning the use of blood, was an interview/conversation (post Muslimani's conversion) he'd had with Rabbi Jacob, who was said to be the head Rabbi of Syria at that time. Rabbi Jacob had also stated: "God loves two kinds of blood; the Passover sacrificial blood and the blood of circumcision." This statement in and of itself, raises some serious questions for a community claiming only to be performing symbolic type religious rituals. Since we know circumcision is a real event involving the real shedding of blood; what does "Passover sacrificial blood" mean?

Both Al-Muslimani and Tlass cited passages out of the Talmud that stated Rabbinic Judaism's god "loved the blood of circumcision and the blood of Passover". To my knowledge neither elaborated on what that meant in relation to sacrificing Christian children, yet I would not suspect they would know, as converts to Islam are usually not well versed in Christian theology.

 _Most Muslims aren't and Islam's understanding of Christian belief is also garnered from Jewish folklore. Islam claims the Trinity first consisted of the Father, the Son and Mary and holds tenaciously to this claim, although it is not based in any historical fact garnered from ancient church statements of faith. Obviously though from the elements of crucifixion, circumcision, being sadistically punctured to death, the consuming of blood, the occurrence on Passover and the religion of the victims; (besides what is said about Jesus in the Talmud) the connection in mockery of the last supper seems clear to me._

Other Muslim middle-eastern media sources have claimed (and still claim today) that Muslim children are also abducted for such ritual sacrifices. Interestingly though most of the Muslim victims Burton, Al-Muslimani and Tlass had recorded were female. This was also the case with the 1910 Shiraz blood libel "pogroms" (riots) in Iran. (Which if the reader recalls from the last chapter of this study, these riots had their same era counterparts in Russia, as Russia and Persia have always had strong allied ties to each other.)

Now I have no idea what the significance of victim's gender related to victim's religion is; or if these significances were only in the minds of the communities of the alleged victims? Also of note between Muslim and Christian communities was the age of the victims. The Muslim girls tended to be older elementary age, yet pre-pubescent, where as the Christian boys tended to be preschool and younger elementary age.

 _ **Research Conducted by a Jewish Historian:**_

All Jewish "public relations" sources (especially the Anti-Defamation League - ADL) will say Blood Libel never happened. Yet in 2007 a Jewish professor of Jewish Renaissance and medieval history at Bar-Ilan University in Israel, attempted to publish a book on said topic, of which he's spent 10 years researching. Ariel Toaff is the son of the chief Rabbi of Rome; (of whom, I believe he is a Rabbi himself). His book was entitled Blood Passover - The Jews of Europe and ritual murder. Mr. Toaff received many death threats in response to his book; of which he'd revised some of his work, not in denial of the occurrence of ritual sacrifice, but to say that the sources of blood were "voluntary". I have no idea what that means in the context of Toaff's revision; (his book covered cases in the middle ages) but one said modern participant in a ritual murder had stated that the infants used were birthed out of incestuous relationships within the participating Jewish community.

Yet Toaff's copyright was dropped in 2014 and according to Internet reports, only 25 copies of the original work were printed. Today though, the translated work (still in workings of the English translation, having originally been written in Italian) is available in PDF format on the Internet under the first two words of it's title "dot com". Needless to say Toaff is not the first scholar / historian / professor to write a book about Jewish ritual murder cases, but he is the first "legitimized" Jewish scholar to do so.

Toaff's book covered history from about 1100 to about 1500 AD. Yet Jewish ritual murder is believed by large swaths of the populations in the Middle East, Africa and Latin America, to still be happening and accusations continue even to this day.

 _ **Modern cases:**_

In 1989 a Jewish woman appeared on the Oprah Winfrey show stating that her family had participated in ritual murders for generations; "going back to the 1700's" of which she claimed that as a child, she'd been forced to kill a baby. She'd also stated that other Jewish families engaged in these rituals too. (She is the witness that gave the source of these victims as having come from incestuous relationships.)

Needless to say, there was much outcry and criticism of Oprah and her staff over the airing of this show. Of which the producers stated that they'd done their investigations as to the overall theme of the show (ritual abuse survivors) and were satisfied that this guest was telling the truth about having been sexually abused as part of a ritual cult. (She was part of a panel of a variety of survivors from different backgrounds.) This guest had self identified as having psychiatric issues, as she stated she had "multiple personalities" (now labeled as Dissociative Identity Disorder in the DSM-5).

Now I have watched this segment, (it's on YouTube) and I can not verify this guest's authenticity of having participated in "blood libel". But I can say that of the years I've studied sexual abuse, PTSD and how traumatic memory is stored in the brain; her "psychiatric presentation" matches certain markers for severe sexual abuse cases. I am familiar with ritual abuse survivors; (I actually know a few personally.) and I don't doubt that at least some of these things they claim, have actually happened to them. Ritual abuse falls under a broad spectrum of belief systems, even though most of the cases I'm familiar with and have read about, do have some consistent elements.

Needless to say, the Oprah Winfrey show is not the only source that has cited ritual murder crimes (or possible "blood libel" cases) of Jews committed against Christians and Muslims. There have been several alleged cases published in modern middle-eastern media outlets, as well as one odd case of skeletal remains found in the excavations of an old synagogue in New York City. This case made the New York Times on April 14, 1989; although nothing conclusive was ever reported as to identifying the remains, or how they got into the synagogue basement? The only thing that was ever reported is that there were rumors the skeleton was of a female teenager and since there was no reports of anyone missing from the Jewish community, it raised some serious questions in the surrounding community as to it's origins. The police were never forthcoming as to the conclusion of their investigation of the matter.

 _ **Records of Blood Libel in antiquity:**_

Now I got to thinking about Jewish ritual murder cases and the question of; if there had been any allegations recorded prior to about 1000 AD? The reason this question came up is because most of the retractors who claim this is nothing but vicious anti-Semitism, say these allegations first arose around 1000 AD. The counter argument to this, is that after Jews were ejected from England at about the end of the first millennium; governing authorities became more diligent of cataloging murder cases and making special note of ones that appeared consistent with ritual murder. This is said reason as to why there is an uptick in numbers of cases starting in about 1000 AD.

Well after digging around on the Internet. I did find that there are records of such ritual murders included in works by historians of antiquity. The first individual case we know of was relayed by Josephus in his work Contra Apionem, which this story is quoted as being recorded by a Greek historian Apion.

In 168 B.C. Apion reports that a Greek adult male was found at the Jewish temple by king Antiochus. When the man noticed the king, he ran to him, fell at his feet and pleaded for his freedom. The king being amazed at the food and housing of this man asked him who he was and why he was there? The man burst into tears and told the king he was a Greek who'd been abducted on his business travels and bought to the temple almost a year ago now. He'd found out from one of the servants that brought him food that he was intended to be a sacrifice in an ritual oath repeated once a year (with a Greek victim) that Jews had made to hate the Greeks.

The story does not record for us the king's immediate reaction, although we do know from history that the following year (167 BC) began the Maccabean revolts. These were lead by Jewish priests when Antiochus (the king in this story) passed a decree forbidding Jewish religious practices. Now Josephus, who is a Jewish historian, claims Apion's account is nothing but Greek propaganda. Obviously we have no way of knowing the historical accuracy of this particular account; but we do know from the wars that succeeded it, something triggered this Greek king to suddenly forbid practices allowed in the kingdom prior.

Interestingly though, I did find some other historical information about the Greeks' perceptions of the Jews. The Greeks being a people of philosophy and curiosity, always strove to find answers to why things in the world around them were the way they were. Many Greek writers and philosophers had recorded that the Jews were separatists and that Greeks in general found that odd, (seeing how the Greeks found value of incorporating the best of other cultures into their own). The prevailing beliefs upon the part of the Greeks were that this Jewish "separateness" had to do with their Scriptures that talked about them being strangers in the land of Egypt and subsequently Babylon; and that the Greeks felt Jewish need to keep themselves separate sprung from these negative experiences. (Greek philosophy is actually the ancient precursor to modern psychology. The Greeks were very reasonable and compassionate people in this regard.)

So, given the fact that the Greeks did not consider the Jews their mortal enemies, (although the Jews considered Hellenism; (Greek culture) to be the mortal enemy of Jewish culture - again "superior culture" "stealing" Jews from their religion) leads me to believe that there is probably some degree of truth to this story. Also considering stories of ritual murder have followed the Jews through several millennia now, lends reasonable questions to the historicity of the allegations.

The next secular account doesn't appear until 300 AD. There are two records from 415 and 425, one in 614 and the remainder begin multiple records staring in 1067 AD on. Also of note that several European kingdoms / nation states commence their expulsion orders of Jews from their kingdoms following trials for ritual murders.

 _ **Luke 13?**_

Which this question brings me to a rather obscure passage in the New Testament. Luke 13:1-9 gives a rather seemingly disjointed account of Galileans killed by Pilate who's "blood is mingled in the sacrifice". Jesus then responds to those posing a question about this historical event with: "You suppose these Galileans were sinners above all Galileans because they suffered (felt, were vexed by) such things?" Jesus than tells them "Except you repent, you shall likewise perish." Then he goes on to mention a related event where 18 were killed when the tower of Shiloem fell on them. "Do you think they were more wicked than all others who dwelt in Jerusalem?"

Now many Bible commentaries say that in this passage, Jesus is addressing the common belief that bad things happen to people because of particular unknown sin. Now that belief had been present in 1st century Jewish thought. We see this addressed when Jesus is asked of a blind man, if he is the one who sinned or was it his parents' sin which made him blind? Yet the context of the Luke 13 passage gives us no reference to that belief.

Also of interest in relation to this passage, is that Pilate's soldiers apparently came into the temple and killed these people. That was not a normal occurrence. The Romans generally did not interfere with other cultures' religious practices, so long as the peace was maintained. So this leads me to believe there must have been a reason Pilate did this. Now we know from historical record that human sacrifice was outlawed in the empire in 97 B.C. Yet if these Galileans were really involved in attempting to carry out some sort of ritual sacrifice (perhaps being in possession of the victim's blood and or body parts, or even a live victim), it would make sense that the Romans would carry out their own version of instantaneous justice based on these people having been "caught in the act". Comparing this to the recording of Greek victims having been taken in the past, it would also make sense that the Romans would only be intervening if what ever this incident was, involved taking of another human life.

The other event recorded to have been connected to this one (in the style of the Greek couplet used) involves the pillars of Shiloem falling on and killing another 18 people. Now apparently from the way these two events are recorded, they were interpreted to have been connected in the minds of the people at the time of their happening. These two events had obviously been of relative recent history to the people raising the questions to Jesus, although we have no record in the secular history as to why Pilate took the actions he had. I also looked in the secular record for any information about these pillars of Shiloem falling. I did not find any information as to when exactly this happened, or even what actually happened.

In digging through records though, I did find some accounts of archeological findings that confirmed these pillars has fallen. They were described in the archeology, as well as the Roman records as having been cylindrical and housing birds that were sold to people as sacrificial animals. Also as seems from the archeological information, they apparently upheld a walk way that stretched across a certain part of the "court of the gentiles" were animals were sold. The "pool of Siloam" (as also mentioned in Scripture) is believed to be in an adjacent area, who's steps were discovered and the pool partially excavated in 2004. "Shiloem" and "Siloam" are various spelling of "Shiloh" which means "city of peace".

Now the Scripture warns of earthquakes in various places as warnings of judgement against the Jewish nation for the rejection of their Messiah; and it is a recorded fact that there were many earthquakes in first century Judea. I'm making an educated guess here that an earthquake is probably what brought down these towers; and looking at their location and what they were used for (housing sacrificial birds), an earthquake as a warning of Divine retribution, makes sense. This very area would have been in the same proximity as where Jesus had driven out the money changers, proclaiming to the leaders of the nation that they'd turned His Father's house into a den of thieves.

 _ **Where exactly was the temple?**_

Now there's a lot of "controversy" over this location, as some believe it is the actual location of the Herodian temple, which is south of where the Dome of the Rock Mosque currently stands; (as well as actually outside the current location of the "old city wall"). Some archeologists believe that the Dome of the Rock mosque is actually part of the Antonia fortress, not the temple mount. Their argument is bolstered by Jesus's prophecy that "not one stone will stand upon another" as to the complete and absolute destruction of the temple. Archeologically speaking, this also seems to be a good "sticking point" too, in that what ever structure surrounded the foundation of these pillars of Shiloem, is basically such a pile of rubble that it's yet to be identified as to what it actually was.

This would also fit (and makes some sense) with Islamic legend that says this location (Dome of the Rock) is where Abraham took Ishmael to be sacrificed. (Mount Mariah) The Scripture actually says that Abraham went to Mt. Mariah and saw in the distance where the sacrifice was to be, thus taking Issac there. Mt. Mariah is also alleged to be where Solomon's temple was originally built. I.E. meaning the location of Mt. Mariah (where the temple was than erected) "the place of sacrifice" could be seen from the temple mount. Golgotha "the place of the skull" (the place of "the Sacrifice") could actually be seen from the temple, (yet I don't know if that would have been true for the Antonia fortress)? The hill where the Muslims believe Abraham took Ishmael, (where the Dome of the Rock currently stands) is geographically higher than Mt. Mariah (the location of Solomon's temple). Also, I have found no statement in Scripture that distinctly says the temple had to be (or was) the highest structure in Jerusalem, even going back to the days of Solomon. Although that may have been the case at the point of Solomon's original construction, especially if the Romans had built up the Antonia fortress post Herodian temple reconstruction.

Interestingly too, this does give some cohesion to the beliefs of "historical location" of all three religions, as well as the "military common sense" assertion that the Romans would have erected the Antonia fortress on (or to be) the highest point of the city.

There is also some historical record of the Jews hating the "Roman standard" because it "stood above the temple". More modern interpretations of those phrases, have asserted that the Romans had erected some sort of emblem to Caesar on the temple entrance. I'm not so sure that would be a proper interpretation though, especially if these archeologists are correct and the Dome of the Rock is indeed standing on the foundation of the Antonia fortress and not the temple mount.

* * *

Now moving on in our "little detour" here, (before returning to the history of Zionism) the next chapter is going to be about the Jesuits and the Vatican.


	12. Armageddon and WWIII?

" **War is not hell - just a preview!"**

Well, since the subject of World War III has come up in the past couple of reviews, (as well as the current issues with North Korea's weapon's testing) I've decided to take a little bit of a detour to address the question of the battle of Armageddon and the possibility of a third world war?

I've been corresponding with the last reviewer about this question and so some of the items discussed in this chapter are excerpts from that correspondence.

 _ **Thank you Crankshaft 7 for your review / and the questions it's posed.**_

* * *

So I have been thinking about this for the past day or so and although a third world war that "usurers in" Armageddon is not out of the realm of possibility, one Scripture verse keeps sticking in my head that causes me to lean toward excluding this notion.

" _But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be._ _For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered into the ark, And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be."_

(Matt 24:37-39)

This verse tells us that the end of time will come without warning and as a surprise to many. The book of Revelation tells us that when this all starts to "go down", there will be many "calling for the rocks to fall on them for fear of the wrath of the Lamb". Yet from multiple Scripture passages, it appears there is no obvious physically discernible warning that the day is coming until it is actually upon us.

The other discernible item of note from the book of Revelation, is that no one on Earth is in question that this event is "the wrath of the Lamb". This is a very different context than human wars nations wage against each other; regardless of how horrendously destructive those wars become.

 _ **A Nuclear WWIII?**_ _(correspondence excerpts)_

Although I can see the reasoning behind the belief that God would have to recreate a new world on account of an event like a full scale nuclear war, (and whether that actually comes to pass or doesn't) "the elements shall melt with fervent heat" could mean something other than nuclear war. The real reason for the destruction of the current universe has more to do with human sin and the temporal nature of this current world, than it would have to do with what we would assume to be an "unrecoverable nuclear catastrophe".

 _God's creative capacity for renewal and regeneration:_

I used to think that a nuclear war would be unsurvivable, and I do concur the possibility that a severe enough one could kill all humanity. And yet we have more than 7 billion people on this planet and I'm not sure how many people are aware, that since WWII more than 2000 nuclear bombs have been detonated on Earth.

Most of these were underground testing and the US detonated many more nuclear devices than the Soviet Union. (1032 to 715 respectively, next was France - 210, Britain and China - 45 each, India - 4, Pakistan - 2. These are the known nuclear detonations.)

Also, a couple of years ago now, I watched a documentary about survivors of Hiroshima, which was probably made in the 1990's. There were several people who gave testimony of what it was like to be in the city when the bomb went off. They were close enough to "see" it and experience the shock waves throwing them across the room, (or vehicles they were in, being thrown several blocks) and 50 plus years later these people were still alive to talk about it. The documentary amazed me because before I saw that, I didn't think anyone who was that close to the blast would have survived.

There were 3 stories I remember quite distinctly, two of the survivors were adults when the bomb exploded and one was a child. The bomb actually detonated before it hit the ground and the woman who was closest to the blast was a driver who was in a public transport bus. The bus was empty and she was not facing the bomb when the flash occurred, so it didn't blind her; but the initial shock wave threw the bus a couple of blocks. She said it knocked her unconscious and when she woke up, the bus was on it's side with the bottom facing the blast direction. She said the metal was hot to the touch and it felt like a sauna, (very dry and hot); so she climbed out of the bus, but it was just as dry and hot outside. She said everything was covered with a grey / white ash and people were wandering through the streets, some with their skin hanging off them crying for water. She said she started looking for water herself when the sky got really dark and then came the "black rain". The next part she attributed to "God's intervention" even though at the time she said she didn't believe in God. She sensed very strongly though that something was telling her that "what ever you do, don't drink the black rain". And it started pouring. She said that eventually she got back into the bus and waited for the rain to stop. She said she was terribly thirsty, but this voice in her head kept telling her not to drink the black rain. She said it was another day or so before she found clean water, but that she realizes now what "don't drink the black rain" meant, because everyone who did, ended up dying within a couple of days.

The second survivor was more on the outskirts of the city. (I think he said he was more than what would have been 2 miles away.) He was a doctor and he said he was in the bedroom of a sick patient when the flash happened. He was tending a little boy and was looking down at the patient, sitting in front of a window when the bomb went off. After the flash, he looked up and he could see the shock wave coming. He grabbed the patient and laid on the floor next to the wall. The shock wave blew out the windows, took off the roof and threw them across the room, but the house remained standing. I believe he said the boy's parents did not survive the blast.

The third survivor was 4 years old and his school had collapsed. He said he was buried under the rubble for what seemed like hours before soldiers from the local base had pulled him out. One of the soldiers picked him up and carried him around the city for the next 5 hours. Finally the little boy heard his father's voice and started yelling for his dad. The soldier walked over to his father, handed the child back to him and walked away. This survivor said that in the 5 hours this soldier carried him around, the soldier never said a word. The survivor said that he realized after he'd gotten older that this soldier was in such shock that all he could do was carry this child through the devastated streets. He said he never saw this soldier again and for the rest of his life, he's always wondered what happened to the soldier.

So yes, as horrendous as a nuclear bomb explosion would be, they are survivable.

Another program I'd seen _**"Life Without People"**_ ; was about how fast vegetation and wildlife would reclaim the Earth if humanity suddenly vanished. One of the examples they used was Chernobyl in Russia. They said in only 30 years, basically plants had taken over the nearby areas which had been evacuated. Wildlife populations had increased too, including wolves, coyotes and bears. Scientists actually went in and captured some of these animals for testing, because they could not believe that even despite the radioactivity, the populations were still increasing. The plants and animals did have higher levels of radiation than other areas, yet they also noted that they did not see the level of effects on genetics they expected and each subsequent generation was less radioactive than it's ancestors. They could not explain how the radiation was dissipating so much faster than expected, but that it seemed the plants were actually "sucking it up" and cleaning the environment. It was pretty amazing.

And yes, as horrendous as nuclear pollution is, it is "recoverable" and life is "surprisingly resilient".

So, all that being said, why does God destroy the Earth before recreating it?

Keep in mind that when the Bible talks about the destruction of these heavens and this earth, it's talking about the entire created world, not just our planet. Now as to what other planets may be inhabited by whatever other life forms; (making a reasonable assumption that there are other inhabited planets) for God to bring down the entire universe, obviously has consequences and reasons far beyond something like a nuclear war on just Earth. To destroy this entire current universe is the only way God can cleanse the repercussions of sin out of this current universe and end evil's potential to ever reenter whatever He would recreate. The fall didn't just affect Earth, it affected everything. So in order to purge everything, everything needs to be destroyed before it is recreated.

I think because all we know, is being mired in a fallen world, we really miss the reality of how very devastating Adam and Eve's disobedience was. It's hard to imagine an eternal incorruptible universe where there is no sin and no death and no potential for those things to ever come back. The recreated universe will be one of very different nature than the current one; and although I do believe it will bear resemblance to what we are familiar with in this current age, I think it is also beyond what we can currently imagine. (It's certainly beyond of the scope of our current understanding.)

 _ **Greek and Hebrew Words:**_

The Scripture is pretty clear that the entire created order was affected by the fall, and thus was also redeemed by Christ.

John 3:16 - "For God so loved the _**world**_..." That Greek word "world" is the word "Cosmos". We understand the Greek word "Cosmos" to mean "universe" and it's used in that context in many places in the Bible.

"God that made the _**world**_ and all the things therein..." (Acts 17:24) That word is also "Cosmos".

"Where by one man sin entered into the _**world**_..." (Romans 5:12) Again "Cosmos".

"And they that use this _**world**_ as not abusing it, but the fashion of this _**world**_ passes away" (1 Corinthians 7:31) Both those words "world" are the word "Cosmos".

"And the _**world**_ passes away and the lust thereof, but he who does the will of God abides forever." (1 John 2:17) Again the word Cosmos.

Now there are times when the word "world" used is not the word Cosmos. This word "world" means "inhabitants of the Earth", which could mean the entire Earth, or a specific geo-political location.

"A decree went out from Augustus Caesar that all the _**world**_ be taxed." (Luke 2:1) That's not the word Cosmos. That word means "inhabitants".

"Because he hath appointed a day, in the which he will judge the _**world**_ in righteousness by that man whom he hath ordained; whereof he hath given assurance unto all men, in that he hath raised him from the dead." (Acts 17:31)

This word is also "inhabitants". This is talking about judgement coming upon the inhabitance of the earth; which I think is probably a general reference to the rise and fall of empires being signs of God's judgement carried out by men upon other nations on account of their sin.

I draw this conclusion because this verse is part of a speech given by Paul to Gentiles in a public discourse where he explains that Christ has enjoined all nations to himself because of the atonement. Israel of that day had already been judged. Rome would be judged "in righteousness by whom he hath ordained" In this God has "given assurance to all that He has indeed raised Christ from the dead". Judgement comes upon men for their collective wickedness because Christ accomplished the atonement. This is why God uses nations as tools to judge other nations, of whom in turn are judged themselves by subsequent nations. The fact that God exercises authority over nations to do this to each other is proof that Christ rose from the dead.

I know this is kind of a weird (and ominous) way to look at war, because as soon as you "win" one, you better look out because yours might be the next neck on the chopping block. This is because Christ's atonement is the standard by which God exercises authority to judge. This is why Jesus says "all authority is given unto the son..."

" _Good" war / "Bad" war:_

 _I've come to conclude that war serves two purposes in God's Divine providence. First and foremost it serves the purpose of redemption, seeing how there is nothing quite like the knowledge of a swiftly approaching conflict that forces young adults (especially) to confront the reality of their mortality._

 _Most combat soldiers are under 30 years old and developmentally this is an interesting place in the human life span. People in this age bracket have "attained adulthood" and a certain degree of independence; yet they are still "innocent" and "naive" enough to hold to certain idealistic beliefs (that got them to the battlefield in the first place) which usually instantaneously evaporate once combat commences. This is especially true for those fighting an offensive war. Soldiers in "defense of their own homeland" position, often fair better psychologically, providing the war remains on their soil, (seeing how they can still see, touch and are surrounded by the tangible reasons they are fighting). When the "point" of the war becomes too remote and abstract, 'you' end up with a lot of problems because eventually the war's "novelty" wears off and 'your' soldiers just want to go home. This is one of the issues "empire building" has, and also one reason empire nations invariably end up with a lot of disillusioned veterans._

 _Also soldiers who's armies don't function in advance of criminal escapades endorsed by the leadership fair better psychologically too. Smart military leaders understand that what you allow to happen on the battlefield ends up affecting not just the morale and cohesion of your military while at war; but the functioning of your own society long after the war is over. In other words, those who started out as 'psychologically normal soldiers', yet were encouraged to "murder, rape and plunder the enemy" aren't particularly effective in combat and don't do well when they come home; because they can't justify, undo, or even get what they did out of their heads. So if they don't end up in prison, or commit suicide shortly after they get home; they end up permanently condemned to a certain type of severe and debilitating PTSD, shut away in locked psych wards of veterans' hospitals for the rest of their lives. War has a tendency to mess people up mentally anyways, but these 'once normal citizens' put in a situation like that, are the guys who have been psychologically (as well as probably literally) raped by their own army!_

 _Spiritually speaking, most people in this age bracket also don't have belief systems that are fully solidified; which plays into the fact that oftentimes belief systems are molded by life events. Anyone who's ever participated in a war is traumatized in one way or another regardless. That's just an unavoidable consequence. Human beings really are both psychologically and physically fragile. This is why "sociologically speaking" armies going off to war (as microcosms of the societies they come from) are indeed surprisingly "religious" entities. The old adage that "there are no atheists in foxholes" certainly rings true._

 _The secondary reason I believe wars happen (as mentioned earlier) is for the point of God's using sinful nations to punish other sinful nations. Now this certainly would not be a popular justification for going to war, but I believe it does have some Scriptural backing to it, as far as Old Testament "execution of the law" type reasoning goes. Again though, this is a double edged sword because he who lives by the law is also judged by it; as well as "he who lives by the sword shall die by the sword"._

 _The other caveat to this, as it relates to the question of World War III in connection to Armageddon; is the inevitable recognition in the human psyche between judgement as a result of God's direct action, as opposed to the use of human agents to execute that judgement. Consider the fact that humans nearly always think differently about natural disasters than what they consider when pondering war. This obviously springs from the reality that it doesn't take much 'looking' to see the sin of all those on either side of a war; where as things such as volcanos and hurricanes are more readily recognized as acts of God._

 _So, in the "battle of Armageddon" (should it actually include a literal Earthly battle with human armies), there is a distinct aspect stated in the book of Revelation that all the Earth recognizes God's direct action entailed in the judgement of the Cosmos. In other words, everyone knows it's the end of time. What is going on in the heavens and on the earth is not mistaken by anyone to be the action of human agents. This is another reason why I think the "battle of Armageddon" is not a battle that involves human armies fighting each other in the "epic good verses evil final showdown"._

 _If anything, I think it is possible that these opposing sides gather in anticipation that they are "in the right", when in reality, the day comes and both sides suddenly realize they are ALL under condemnation! What then, with "mens' hearts failing them for fear" you think anyone is going to even think of pushing the proverbial little red button? I doubt it. If any sound at all is heard, it will be the saints shouts of joy for saving us from humanities' finest hour of collective stupidity!_

 _So with that said - back to the Scripture texts:_

"And the devil, taking him up into an high mountain, showed unto him all the kingdoms of the world in a moment of time." (Luke 4:5)

This passage is about Satan and Christ in the wilderness temptation. It's kind of ironic (and I myself think this is actually funny). Here's Satan offering Jesus rulership over all the political empires of the Earth, when Christ actually OWNS the Universe. (Satan - you dumb a—!)

Now next verses here are an interesting couple of verses. I just noticed this when I looked them up in my Englishman's concordance. They are both in Hebrews. The first is a reference to Jesus being the "first begotten into this _**world**_ " (1:6) and the second:

(Hebrews 2 - verse 5)

4 God also bearing them witness, both with signs and wonders, and with divers miracles, and gifts of the Holy Ghost, according to his own will?

5 For unto the angels hath he not put in subjection the _**world**_ to come, whereof we speak.

6 But one in a certain place testified, saying, What is man, that thou art mindful of him? or the son of man that thou visits him?

This word "world" (to come), (because it is the word "inhabitants" and not "Cosmos") appears to me to be a reference to the "empire" of Christianity as it stands throughout the New Testament age (and actually Old Testament age too). This makes sense in Scriptural context because we as believers indwelled by the Holy Spirit, have been translated out of this kingdom, into the Kingdom of His dear son. Satan, being the "prince of this world" no longer bears dominion over us, although we still physically reside in a fallen world.

Now how do I know "the world to come" is not speaking of the new heavens and the new earth? This conclusion comes from the next set of words I am about to point you to; which talks about the phrase "heavens and earth".

 _ **Heavens and Earth:**_

"Heavens and earth" is used 6 times in the New Testament; 4 of which are in 2 Pete 3 which talk about the heavens and earth passing away and a new heavens and earth being created.

Notice "heavens" is plural. This same phrase is used in Genesis 2:1 "The heavens and the earth were finished and all the host of them."

Now we understand from the description in Genesis that there is a "heaven" which entails the atmosphere of planet Earth.

There is also a "second heaven" that contains stars (which we now understand to be other solar systems and galaxies etc) which we would generically call "outer space".

And also there is a 3rd heaven, generically referred to as "the domain of God", which seems to be sort of an "alternate state of existence", in this current order more than (maybe) a physical local. (Although I don't discredit the probability that it certainly may be both. Evidently too we know the "domaine of God / heaven" can be entered and left by other created entities such as angels, deceased saints, beasts etc.)

Now the next question that arises is: which of these "heavens and earth" are in order to be recreated? Does the "domain of God" as it stands now, need to be recreated? My guess would be "no", because it was probably already created (possibly as a prototype of the new heavens and new earth) when this first heavens and earth was created to begin with.

So in conclusion, I think it is pretty clear that it is the entire universe that will be destroyed and recreated; and that aspect of the destruction can only be by Divine doing.

Now God may allow us to destroy much of this planet with nuclear weapons and if He does, that will likely just be another "wars and rumors of wars" event that happens prior to judgement day; but fear not all - we do not have the power to destroy the Cosmos with our measly nukes.


	13. Vatican II

**Vatican II**

 _ **(modern background information)**_

 _This chapter contains a lot of background information about the changes that took place in the Roman Catholic Church starting in the 1960's. Just like the chapters on the history of "Protocols" though, this one is also "complicated" and has "a lot of moving parts". So, I tried to keep all this information contextually "in one place", which I think has made this chapter longer than any other so far. So that being the case, much like the "blood libel" chapter, this chapter covers multiple related subject matter under the umbrella of a single topic - the Roman Catholic Church._

* * *

 _ **The Roman Catholic Church, Zionism and "The Protocols":**_

Now I'm aware of at least one conspiracy theory that connects the Roman Catholic Church (RCC) with the Jewish power elite and the Revelation 13 beast structure (and yes, it is true that today all the "known" liquid assets of the Vatican are part of the global banking system). Yet as interestingly and dually noted by Wikipedia; the total assets of the RCC are listed as "unknown". This of course bears witness to the undeniable truth that the RCC is (probably still) the wealthiest organization on planet Earth.

I've seen it said on the Internet that orders such as the Jesuits are actually a sort of "front group" for control of the Roman church by the Talmudic rabbis. Others claim it is the other way around. (the Jesuits control and use Judaism as a scapegoat.) I had no idea what, if, or how deep the connections were? All I knew is that they were claimed to be there, so I decided it was time to research that too.

 _ **Before I get into what I've found, I want to set forth a couple of observations:**_

First off, I know that the Vatican archives house an awful lot of information that is unknown to the public. It is obvious from its historical actions that the Vatican is certainly aware of the political wrangling and "goings in" and "goings out" of this network of secret organizations that are of both Jew and gentile, which make up this beast structure.

This whole "power play" is like an underground chess game, where the individual apparat(i) of this "beast system" are trying to guard their personal interests against infiltration from another part of the apparatus. We see this best illustrated in the intelligence / counter intelligence actions of national governments. We have proponents of this "new world order" battling against national entities like Iran, Russia, North Korea and Cuba, while other nations like Britain, France and the U.S. are trying to operate within the corrupt system with the intent of protecting their own interests as best they can. Meanwhile other countries like China, India and a whole host of nations in Africa, are primarily concerned with industrial development, energy, resource distribution and population issues. Then within all these systems, are individuals on all sides of the fence "duking out" the spiritual warfare of good vs evil.

Keep in mind Jesus's statement that "a kingdom divided against itself can not stand"; as well as "my kingdom is not of this world". Understanding that this beast apparatus is the ultimate brain child of Satan; but since Satan is the father of lies, no schema he devises will ever ultimately succeed. Even if God did not have His hand of Divine intervention in all of this, (and He certainly does because of the presence of believers sprinkled as "secret agents" throughout the entire system) the wickedly intended individual components of the beast system would still be beating their heads against each other; simply because that is the nature of evil.

So, that being said; (and getting back to the Roman Catholic Church) I believe the Vatican is part of the beast network and orders (or portions there of) like the Jesuits, probably serve as / like unto the intelligence agencies of nation states. If for example, we look at organizations like the American CIA, the FBI, or in Russia what was formerly the KGB, or Britains Scotland Yard; within those type organizations, there are people "working both sides" of the fence. Here is the idea of the division between the legitimate governing body and the organizational rogue elements of what is called "the deep state". (I'll talk about the structure of the Jesuit order later, along with it's striking functional similarities to military / intelligence operations.)

The RCC though, being an entity unto itself which is spread across many geo-political frontiers; (like is said of these beasts in Revelation and Danial) functions as a different type of empire. On account of the economic power it's wealth commands, I'd say the RCC is part of the "first beast structure" in much the same way nation states are, yet also similar to other global organizations, (such as the Masons or even large protestant denominations) in that they cross geo-political boarders.

 _ **Revelation's Second Beast:**_

This of course invariably brings us to the second beast of Revelation 13. This beast arises out of the land, has horns of a lamb, but speaks as a serpent. This is the only description given to us about the second beast (other than it's causing the inhabitants of the Earth to worship the first). Interestingly though, the attributes of this second beast look a lot like the corporate entity of the Christian church. "Rising out of the land" - hearkens unto the Scriptural language of Christendom's fundamental doctrine of the resurrection? "Horns of a lamb" - hearkens unto Scriptural language of the church's stated association with Christ? "Speaks as a serpent" (and is involved in worship) - obvious reference to this beast's connection to the first beast.

So if the first beast appears around the time of the penning of the Scripture (I'll explain why I think that is in a future chapter) and has direct links to apostate Judaism; it makes sense that the second beast (which appears after the first beast with striking attributes that hearken unto Christian symbolism) would have direct links to apostate Christianity.

"Apostate Christianity" rightly defined here as any denomination, or portion there of, that has strayed from the fundamentals of Christian faith; by denial of the death / burial / resurrection of Christ, the Trinity (i.e. Deity of Christ), the reality of retribution for sin, (i.e. existence of hell) all or any part of these doctrinal fundamentals and/or has an authority greater than Old and New Testament Scripture only. This would include Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, Seventh Day Adventists, and any individual or church involved in the modern "speaking in tongues" movement.

I would also include here the "doctrinal apparatus" of the Roman Catholic Church (including the presence of the Apocrypha in the Catholic Bible) that makes it distinct from Protestant churches. I say "doctrinal apparatus" because I know there is quite a range of what I'd call "internal beliefs" among individual Roman Catholic congregants (and even perishes) around the world. The Protestant Reformation affected the RCC probably more than most people realize. (It probably affected Eastern Orthodox beliefs and practices too, but I don't know as much about that tenant of Christendom as I know about protestants and Roman Catholics, so I can't speak as to the "nuts and bolts" of the "how" concerning Eastern Orthodox denominations.)

There are attendees to the RCC though, that I would actually label "Sola Scripture Catholics", in that they do adhere to the belief that Scripture is the final authority on all matters of belief and practice. They see certain practices of the church as "traditions of men" that run in similar venue as "Christianized" cultural traditions (Christmas, Easter, Thanksgiving, Valentine's Day, etc.) and they make the point that Jesus only condemned human traditions that took precedence over God's commands. (Which is true, Christ does not condemn human traditions simply on the fact that they exist.) Anyone who's been around Roman Catholicism enough will know there is quite a variation in individuals' takes on the meanings of things taught by the church; like veneration of the saints, the authority of the pope, the place of the Apocrypha etc. All these different 'slants' (some of which I will touch on in parts of this chapter) are pretty interesting.

So besides doctrinal apostasy, I would also include (in a "first cousin twice removed" sort of way), any western religious denomination / organization that has "attached" itself to the first beast by means of it's economic and / or political agenda. I would include here Zionistic organizations that "boarder" on worshiping Israel. (As opposed to 'lesser zionists' (really nationalists) who look at Israel more from the vanish point of the fairness of ethnic / religious groups having their own nation; also recognizing that Israel (much like communist countries) has some profound flaws in it's ideological practices, as they play out in it's political life.) As part of this bigger picture though, America has the same problem with some of it's foreign policies; especially in the Middle-East (which it is quite evident to even the casual observer that Israel's politics and America's foreign policies are most certainly linked) but that's another subject altogether.

Lastly I would have to add the probability that this second beast also includes Islam, as Islam is actually an offshoot of Christianity. We will explore this second beast in more detail later on.

 _ **Receiving / RECEIVING the Mark and Worshiping the Beast:**_

So just like the individual citizens of a nation, many Roman Catholic (as well as Protestant and Eastern Orthodox) church members may relate more "by proxy" of "necessary evil", than willful, full scale and wholesale "worship of the beast". In other words, these Catholics full well recognize the corruption in the system and that something has gone awry in these "changes in policies", (departing from historical and Biblical beliefs) in this new shift of 180 degrees in the opposite direction; (originating with Vatican II).

Historically speaking, the Vatican has been of the position of staying as far away from this association of Kabbalah / Talmudic / occult practices as possible. For millennia the Vatican and Rabbinic Judaism have been archenemies and for many Roman Catholics deep down, I honestly don't think that has changed; even though this appears to have been whitewashed over by some of the Vatican's actions of recent decades.

Just like any other nation state though, it seems the historic and traditionalist elements of the (now seriously if not irreparably fractured) RCC was / is trying to navigate this system of politics in the international arena, to the best protection of its own interests (and make no mistake, Roman Catholicism still wields an immense amount of power on the global stage). There are more Roman Catholics in Christendom than any other protestant denomination, as well as all protestant denominations added together. (Roman Catholics = 50%, Protestants = 37%, Eastern Orthodox = 12%, Other Christian sects = 1% (Mormon, Christian Scientist, Jehovah's Witnesses))

 _ **Part of "Protocols" or Roman Catholic Propaganda?**_

So to "kick off" our journey into the history of all of this; I have another newspaper article. This publication is from _**"The London Catholic Gazette"**_ published in February 1936. It appeared in England along with another Catholic publication _**"Catholic Missionary Society of England"**_. and in the weeks following, came a French publication _**"Le Reveil du Peuple"**_ printed in Paris. Again these articles were about a global Jewish conspiracy to conquer the world, yet this aspect being specifically directed at the RCC.

All three articles were of said similar flavor, although the only one I could find an Internet copy of, was the _**London Catholic Gazette.**_ I read through the entire article and though I believe it was probably "inspired" from "Protocols", I don't believe it was written by "the learned elders" as it is claimed to be. I believe it was written by an amateur Roman Catholic "propagandist" who was probably either a journalist, or editor for that particular media outlet.

First off - As compared to how "Protocols" is written, this article had much more "flowery" language, that was rather typical for journalism of the day. "Protocols" themselves read more like a rather choppy, very dry, mechanical instruction manual and have nothing of a positive, or 'we are threatened by' the RCC flavor to them whatsoever. Matter of fact "Protocols" doesn't even call the Roman Catholic Church by name, although it does use the word "priest" and "pope".

Two other differences the _**London Catholic Gazette**_ article speaks of, are the founding of the Masons and the Protestant Reformation. As there does seem to be some connection between Free Masonry and the Kabbalah / Talmud; there is nothing from the writings of the reformation that would lead any reasonable history student to believe it's origins had anything to do with Rabbinic Judaism. "Protocols" doesn't even mention the Reformation and only bears some instructional desire to infiltrate Free Masonry. So since the oldest lodges of the Freemasons started in the second decade of the 18th century, I think it's reasonable to conclude "Protocols" was written after that. Also, unlike the Mormon church's positive adoption of Jewish folk stories into the Book of Mormon; most writers from the Reformation (just like the RCC of that day) had nothing whatsoever good to say about Judaism, it's lore, or customs.

Thirdly the _**London Catholic Gazette**_ cites Roman Catholicism as the moral foundation of western civilization and thus the reason the Zionists want to ruin the RCC. "Protocols" though don't give the RCC that caliber of moral recognition as an agent of moral leadership in western society; and I think this is because of "Protocols" atheistic origins. I think to some degree, the Roman Catholic belief that the church is the impetus that is holding together society's moral fabric, is probably true for many Roman Catholics, but obviously protestantism holds sway with it's own moral torches too. Despite what denominations believe about themselves though, I think most Christians recognize their foundation of moral authority comes from the Scriptures themselves. Compare this though to the vast majority of Rabbinic Judaism; where the highly atheistic system derives it's moral authority either from the humanistic ideals of the enlightenment (on the positive end of the spectrum), to Social Darwinism (on the negative). Of the third category too; secular atheists, humanists and the "generically spiritual" tend to derive their moral and ethical standards from the post modern philosophy of moral relativism.

On the flip side of all of these accusations though, many of the "events" and "changes" cited to take place within individual perishes and the Vatican itself, (which are both written of in this article, as well as "Protocols") have actually come to pass since 1936. Two of the said "schemas" that have come to pass, are the fact that the RCC was hit with many scandals that have their origins back in the early 60's (primarily child sex abuse / homosexuality scandals) and it's now very apologetic position toward Judaism.

 _ **RCC sex (abuse / homosexuality) scandals and the statistics:**_

As to the copious sexual abuse / homosexuality scandals? Statistically speaking, we find they actually have their origin in the early 1960's and through the 70's; and do not stretch back centuries. Some of this we can glean not only from external sources; (numbers of accusations brought before civil authorities) but also the historical evidence from the Vatican's own archives. Standard protocol until 1958, was that if any priest or cleric student was found to be "a sodomite" they were either forbidden to be ordained, or defrocked immediately and excommunicated from the order. In 1555 Pope St. Pius V set the precedence, when a ring of 4 to 5 pedophile clergy had been discovered by the Vatican. St. Pius ordered that they be apprehended, turned over to the civil authority and: "If they be found guilty - execute them." Following the Protestant Reformation, there are some records in the Vatican archives of accusations levied, but not hardly the numbers as we see coming from the decades of the 1960's - 1970's.

Now of course one could argue about the reporting of such cases prior to the 1960's. Yet of another interesting fact I have recently uncovered; there are very few Catholic clergy child sex abuse cases that postdate the mid 1980's. Starting at about 1984 and later, victim complaints of sexual misconduct from the clergy drop sharply and remain consistent to these markedly lower stats continuing into today. The vast majority of child sex abuse cases we've heard from the media in the "Roman Catholic Church Scandal" occurred between 1960 and 1980.

 _("Ironically" too, this is also true of accusations against public school teachers in the U.S. There was a notable spike in reported cases between 1960 and 1980, which also dropped significantly starting about 1984. I don't know what the European school teacher accusation stats are, but the RCC stats consist of complaints coming from victims in Europe, the U.S. and Canada. As per what's actually written in "Protocols"? No such scandals were "predicted" to hit the school systems, only instructions to indoctrinate the educational institutions with Marxist ideology; (which that has come to pass now too). So, I'd conclude that part of this spike in sex abuse accusations is a result of sociological changes in western civilization. (i.e. the sexual revolution - which started in the 1950's with Alfred Kinsey's highly skewed and biased research on sexuality. He used prison inmates convicted of sexual misconduct and said these results were typical of the general American public.) As time plays out in the life of civilizations though, the moral pendulum of (namely) "Christian" societies tends to swing between "liberal" and "conservative" usually depending on extent of the influence of revivals of a given era.)_

Also, the initial vehicle of most of these RCC abuse cases had been stated as the confessional. (Confession being used groom potential victims by "finding their weakness"; but also stated as the location that many of the assaults took place.) Children were not required to partake in confession before the 20th century. (1903 - St. Pius X) So this also gives credence to the substantially lower numbers in the Vatican archives predating the 1960's.

 _ **Stats on Victims and Perps:**_

Also of interesting note is that 80% of the RCC victims from the 60's and 70's, were post pubescent teens, as well as (yet to a lesser degree) young adult seminary students. This is linked to statistical information about offenders sexual orientations.

Statistically speaking 1 in 4 girls and 1 in 7 boys will be victims of sexual abuse before they reach 18 years old. People aged 12 to 17 represent the largest risk pool for sexual abuse and statistically speaking, there are more victims in this age range than any other. (More than 50% of reported sex abuse cases involve victims in this age group.) The second largest risk pool is women ages 18 to 27. (Which if I'm remembering correctly accounts for 25 to 30% of all sexual assault victims and the bulk of these statistics come from college campuses.) The next largest risk pool, (out side of prison) are young men in the military. After 28 years old, the probability of sexual assault statistically decreases proportionally with increase in potential victims age. These statistics are also true going in the other direction; the younger the child, the less statistical risk of sexual abuse.

Now, for the offenders. 99% of accused, tried and convicted sex offenders are male. Offenders against prepubescent children are generally believed to be heterosexual, regardless of gender of preferred victim. Offenders of victims in this age range, tend to offend against both males and females in more equal proportions of victims per individual offender.

For offenders who's victims are post-pubescent; victim gender correlates to offender's sexual orientation. Sex offenders account for about 4 to 5% of the U.S. general population, where as self identified homosexuals only account for about 3% of the U.S. general population. Of the homosexual population; 75% are male and 25% are female. So when we crunch the numbers for offender orientation and age and gender of victims: For the statistic of post-pubescent male victims to be so high, we find that (of orientation in the general population) per capita, a greater percent of homosexual men are sex offenders than heterosexual men.

So how does this information tie to the RCC?

 _ **Coup in the Vatican?**_

Just like this 1936 news paper article claims will happen; there are many who claim a Jewish / Masonic coup actually took place in the RCC starting in 1958. (I'll cover that in a minute.)

As for the child sex abuse spike in numbers; I'd found on the Internet a series of writings from / and interviews with Catholics who recall being in orphanages or schools from the time of WWII into the mid 50's and none of them reported experiences of, or recalled an "air of needing to be wary of something not being right". (A common "gut feeling" victims of sexual abuse get about their abuser in the "lead up" to the abuse.)

Matter of fact, several that had been in school between the mid 50's and early 70's described their recognition of "the change". One fellow (James Condit Jr.) was getting ready to graduate high school (Cincinnati - 1968) when he stated that he remembered a "whole new crop" of clergy coming into teaching positions in his school. Condit went to a Jesuit high school, and says that he remembers distinctly that things changed almost overnight. The dress code changed, what was being taught changed, the "old guard" clergy was replaced and everything related to personal discipline and moral absolutes was gutted from the catechisms.

 _Immediately following on the heals of Vatican II; Pope John XXIII's (Angelo Giuseppe Roncalli - Italy) first priority was to change the Catholic school text books. (Converted Jew, Gregory Baum was appointed by Pope Paul VI (Giovanni Battista Enrico Antonio Maria Montini - Italy. Pope Paul VI's lineage can be found in Golden Book of Italian Nobility stating that Montini is from a Jewish family. Also of unmistakable note; both these popes - John XXIII and Paul VI were Masons. Matter of fact, there is now quite an extensive list of hierarchal RCC clergy (bishops, cardinals etc.) who are Masons; all of whom received ordination following Vatican II.) From 1964-1968 Baum was assigned to oversee the rewriting of all textbooks to eliminate negative references to Judaism._

 _ **Catholic Traditionalists and the 1958 Pontiff election:**_

So, here is where the "conspiracy" begins. The Roman Catholic church went through a serious schism that started in 1958, when many who would later come to be known as "traditionalists", believed the legitimately elected pope was supplanted by what they call an "anti-pope", (followed now by a series of anti-popes).

The next major upheaval came in 1962 with a convention of church leadership that is known to both Catholics and non-Catholics as "Vatican II". Vatican II (so) radically changed (so) much of Roman Catholic doctrine and practice, that many (if not most) of the "breakaways" (known as traditionalists) don't recognize Vatican II as their legitimate spiritual authority.

Now these traditionalists are still technically part of the Roman Catholic church, but they do represent such a large undercurrent of the "masses" that should they actually break from the Vatican and start their own "Roman Catholic revertive reformation"; this would effectively put an end to the Roman Catholic church as the quasi-political entity we understand today. On account of their loyalty to the office of Papal traditions though, they chose to stay within the church and await the day of what they would consider the legitimate papacy to reemerge. They describe their state of existence, (as well as the state of Roman Catholicism in general) as "the church in eclipse". They consider their spiritual foundation in traditional doctrines and practices to still be there, but that some foreign entity or agency (most visibly Masonry) has taken control of the helm. In this way they consider the "anti-pope" as type of "anti-Christ", but this understanding of "anti-Christ" is different from both the protestant version of "the anti-Christ" as well as the current Scriptural misinterpretation held by most protestant denominations, (as well as probably most modern Catholics) as to who or what the anti-Christ really is. The Scripture actually labels Judas Iscariot as "the son of perdition" and the epistles speak of many anti-Christ(s), not one "major" one. Which in this case, the RCC traditionalists' interpretation of anti-pope = anti-christ is a Scriptural one.

Also of interesting note; many Roman Catholic traditionalists state the warnings of these things happening to the church came from the visions of Fatima, which took place in 1917.

* * *

 _Again, I found it necessary to break this up into other chapters. This next chapter though will deal more with Bible study material and how it relates to religions today; with a specific focus on Roman Catholicism and it's relationship to Rabbinic Judaism._


	14. Eschatological Systems and the Scripture

**Bible Study Observations**

Roman Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Islamic Eschatology

And the Scripture

 _ **Who's the "anti-christ"?**_

So this brings me to another epiphany that has just hit me in the past month. If we were to have a false messiah emerge on the global stage as some sort of world leader ("the anti-Christ" as dispensational belief would label it). This individual could only come out of the Rabbinic Jewish tradition.

First off, the Muslims don't believe in a "Messiah" (or at least not one who operates in the same context as the Jewish, or Christian Messiah). Islam tends to look at all the personalities of the Scripture fairly equally. No one "stands out" as something more than a prophet in this belief system. Now granted there are some prophets who bear more weight than others, but none stand out with the importance Christianity places on the office Jesus Christ holds. So in essence because the Muslims don't believe in a Messiah, we would not see a false messiah arise out of Islam.

The same goes for any tenant of Christianity. All denominations, including most apostate ones, understand the importance of Jesus Christ and the office he/He holds. So in other words, no pope, protestant leader, Mormon or adherent to any other Christian sect, (outside of the David Koresh / Jim Jones wing nut types) is going to come forth with any serious credibility; and say "I am the Messiah." (So, my apologies to all those "the Roman Catholic church is the Mother of Harlots" adherents; but no pope is ever going to say "I am Jesus Christ" and not have his entire denomination see him as someone who has simply lost his mind.)

So if a singular anti-christ figure appears as a political leader who actually wields some power, the only group he would ever arise from is Rabbinic Judaism, seeing how they are the only religion who is still "looking for" / awaiting the Messiah; as well as being the largest (per capita) politically orientated power group.

And I'm sorry, but this is where this idea of a singular world leader who would be a power player on the international political stage, claiming to be the Messiah (labeled by Christians and Muslims as anti-Christ) gets far fetched. There's too much global awareness of the Scripture today. In this respect, the Zionist agenda has done it's job a little too well. People would immediately recognize some world leader who suddenly claims to be Christ and this person would be removed (if not assassinated) immediately.

 **Eschatological Belief Systems:**

Another thing I've noticed in all these studies, which I find quite intriguing, is that large swaths of people from a variety of backgrounds (Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, Protestant and even those outside of Christianity i.e. Muslims and Jews) have a sense of (or belief) that we are quickly edging toward the end of time. In addition to this, because of globalization, I'm sure many adherents to eastern religions are also aware of western messianic prophetic beliefs and their relationship to "the end of time". Granted there are some "Grand Canyon sized differences" in interpretation of (western) Scripture texts and "signs of the times" of the world as we see it now; but one common thread runs through all of this. That is the belief that the end is coming sooner than later.

Also, another common belief in all these western groups, is the appearance of either a messianic figure and / or an anti-messianic figure:

 _ **Muslims:**_

Their belief is surprisingly similar to Christian, in that they also believe in an "anti-christ" who comes on the scene before the final judgment and Jesus himself actually returns to assist the Mahdi (means "guided one" in Arabic) in setting up a kingdom of peace on earth, following the final judgement. Islam also believes all humanity will be raised from the dead, the current universe is destroyed and recreated and the righteous enter into the land of peace, while the wicked are removed and cast into hell.

Now granted there is some variants of eschatological beliefs between the Sunnis and Shias and I don't know enough about Islam to know all the differences.

 _ **Christians:**_

 _Dispensationalism:_

The most common current belief is that the world will see an anti-christ appearing before the real Christ physically returns. This anti-christ also ushers in 3.5 years of 'the great tribulation'. Some believe the entire 'tribulation' will be 7 years, but the 'anti-christ' only shows up on the scene the last 3.5. At the end of the tribulation, Jesus returns and there is a 1000 year reign.

There is some variance in the understanding of the "rapture" (believers being removed from the earth) as to when it relates to both the "1000 year reign" and the final judgement. Some believe Christians aren't raptured until after the tribulation, most though seem to believe they are raptured before. There is also a tenant that believes the rapture is "mid-tribulation" (Before the anti-Christ appears.)

A major belief of this eschatological system though, is that "the Jews" (current adherents to Rabbinic Judaism) will suddenly recognize Jesus Christ as their Messiah and become Christians. How many, who and how? Well?…. Admittedly, the mechanism of operation is a bit fuzzy.

 _Scenario #1: - pre-tribulation rapture issues:_

Now if the Holy Spirit has departed and took all the Christians with Him, who's preaching the gospel to all these Jews and how do they become regenerated without the Holy Spirit? Then there is the other question as to how the 1000 year millennium actually pans out? After 3.5 years of "hell on earth", are all these Jews magically converted as soon as Christ appears? What about the rest of the nations who've also been through this tribulation? Is the 1000 year reign Israel's "golden age" living in happy harmony with Jesus Christ ruling over them from Jerusalem in an actual literal political kingdom? (What a hoot that would be! Pose this scenario to Talmudic Jews and see what kind of reaction you get.)

Are the Christians hanging out on earth with Jesus and all these newly converted Jews for some golden age of Jews, Christians and Jesus living in harmony and ruling righteously over the rest of the nations? Than at the end of the millennium, Satan is loosed again to "deceive the nations" there is another big "hubbub" and finally judgement day comes?

 _Scenario # 2: - mid-tribulation rapture issues:_

This idea runs up against the same questions as the pre-tribulation rapture. The only technicality is that the rapture falls "mid-tribulation"; wherewith the believers (both gentile and Jew) are raptured just before the anti-Christ appears. Once the tribulation is over, comes the 1000 year reign.

 _Scenario # 3: - post tribulation rapture:_

Everyone remains on earth through out the tribulation and when the 7 years are up, the rapture takes place. Believers (both previously deceased as well as currently living) are raptured, "meet the Lord in the air" in which all return to Jerusalem for the 1000 year reign.

Next comes the final judgement and most Christians believe that once the final judgement is rendered, the current universe is destroyed and recreated an incorruptible universe where sin and death exist no more.

This belief system (called "dispensationalism") has only been around about 150 years and primarily comes from the Scofield Reference Bible. It is a belief system heavily invested in the Zionist world view to "bless Israel" so "you will be blessed" (contrarily if you "curse Israel" you will be "cursed") and was invented to contend with the theological question for Christians as to "what happens to the Jews?" Politically though, it was invented to remove the barriers historic Christian eschatology held against the Zionist agenda.

 _ **Next we will be looking at what Christendom believed prior to the advent of dispensationalism.**_

 _Historical al-millennialism:_

A second understanding of "end times" is that Jesus set up His millennial kingdom at the cross; (commonly referred to as "al-millennialism"). This is historically what the church (both Protestant and Roman Catholic (including Eastern Orthodox) believed until about the latter half of the 19th / early 20th century when "dispensationalism" was invented.

In this system, following Christ's ascension and the Holy Spirit being poured out at Pentecost; is that the religious system of the "Old Covenant" was done away with. This eschatological belief system holds closest to what has actually happened in history, as the temple was destroyed in 70 AD. This is where we get Preterism from, although some of the major tenants of Preterism were not articulated until after the Reformation; (i.e. - the Nero recidivism legend).

The "millennial reign" runs its course of the appointed "1000 years". Obviously historically the church believed the millennial reign was a literal 1000 years, until time had surpassed the first millennium. There was a great anticipation of Christ's return in the years leading up to 1000 A.D. When He didn't return in 1000 A.D., obviously the Christian world had to go back and try and figure out what Revelation was really talking about with the "1000 year reign". This is where historically, most of the church came to the conclusion that the "1000 year reign" must some how be figurative.

* * *

 **Bible Study Tidbits:**

Well, when I started digging around in Revelation, I discovered that the term "1000 years" is actually in the plural. I don't know enough about the Greek though to be able to determine if this is a "duel plural" (2000 years), or a "multiple plural" (thousands of years). Now to throw a little more of a monkey wrench in here, we have a couple of passages in the Bible that say "1000 years is as a day and a day is as 1000 years" / "1000 years is as yesterday when it has passed…". (2 Peter 3:8 & Psalm 90:4) We have other passages in Revelation that elude to 3 and 1/2 days.

Now Daniel 12 also talks about the end of time. We know this passage is talking about the era just before judgement day, because right in verse 2, it talks about the final resurrection. Verse 7 speaks of "time, times and a half a time" that these things will be completed; (implying judgement day also).

Now here is where I scratch my head. If a day is as a thousand years and a thousand years is as a day; essentially we have 3500 years. Now if the plural of 1000 in Revelation is actually "2" "thousands"; an interesting thing happens when we go back in history 1500 years from the crucifixion (accounting for our 3500 years); we come to Exodus.

 _ **Exodus from Egypt:**_

The best most accurate guess about when the Exodus happened was around 1447 B.C. Now an exact 3500 years prior to 2033 A.D. (2000 literal years after the crucifixion plus 1500 years before the birth of Christ) brings us to 1467 B.C. (We're 20 years ahead of the Exodus.) Yet, the Scripture tells us Moses was 40 years old when he left Egypt the first time and 80 when he returned. Somewhere in that 40 years during the time he was a shepherd, came the burning bush event. Now I went back digging through the language in Exodus to find this account.

The passage starts in Exodus 3. Moses sees a bush that looks like it's on fire but not burning up, so he decides to go investigate it. Once God sees Moses coming He speaks to Moses. Moses hides his face and I'm sure verse 7 "…I have surely seen the affliction of my people which are in Egypt, and have heard their cry by reason of their task masters; for i know their sorrows:…." left Moses caught like a deer in the headlights. What transpires next is an interesting conversation between God and Moses.

"I can't."

"I'll help you."

"I can't."

"I'm God (yes you can)"

"I can't"

"Tell them I'm God (yes you can)"

"I can't."

"Didn't I tell you I was going to help you."

"I can't."

"They will listen to you."

"I can't."

"Look, this is what I'm going to do to Pharaoh."

"I can't."

"Look, I'm going to help the people too."

"I can't."

"Let me show you something. What's in your hand. Throw it on the ground."

(The staff becomes a serpent. God tells Moses to pick it up again and he does.)

"See, you can do stuff like that. They'll believe you."

"Ehh….."

"Stick your hand in your cloak."

(Moses comes out with Leprosy and than he's clean again.)

"But…but… I'm not good at speeches."

"I'll send Aaron with you."

And the discourse goes on and on. It's quite a long conversation that follows through several chapters and obviously over the course of some time. (Moses goes to Jethro, and down to Egypt and back into the wilderness to meet Aaron and than back to Egypt to meet with the elders, than to Pharaoh, and back to the Elders, and back to Aaron etc.)

Now we get to chapter 7. This is where it tells us Moses is 80 years old, and suddenly things start to move. God tells Moses and Aaron to go speak to Pharaoh one last time and like clockwork, one right after the other the plagues happen. It's quite a quick succession from there on out and all the decedents of Abraham finally leave Egypt. (And make no mistake of missing this point; the land of Egypt is utterly and absolutely destroyed. It is so devastated that a large number of Egyptians leave with them.) We generally think Exodus only took a couple of months, but as I read and contemplate this whole sequence of events. I realize it's quite plausible that from the onset (the first citing of the burning bush) finally leading up to the actual Exodus, very well may have taken 20 years.

Getting back to Daniel 12 here; it too has some very interesting related phrases. Verse 7 says that it is "time, times and half a time" when "he (God) shall have accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people, all these things shall be finished." Now one thing I was looking carefully for when reading through this; I did note that this passage does NOT indicate, that the marking off of this time line has not already commenced by the time Danial has this vision.

What has brought me to this conclusion? Something else Danial 12 says:

"… and there shall be a time of trouble, such as never was since there was a nation even that same time:…." (verse 1)

Here in this passage, there seems to be a clue; "since there was a nation". Now I did look this up in the Hebrew and it is translated with the correct tense. I find this phrase intriguing because it's speaking of an end time event, referencing "since there was a nation" in the past tense. This might not have caught Danial's attention, considering Daniel lived during the Babylonian captivity and to his perspective, "the nation" was past tense. The people though, (at least the ones who paid attention to the prophets) expected that they would return from exile, seeing how their Messiah had not appeared yet and all the prophets were telling them that their time wasn't finished; there would be a restoration.

Ironically though, speaking of a far future event where "there was a nation", does indicate to the reader that the nation will be destroyed again after the promised restoration. This phrase though, seems to make a point that there also was a pinpoint-able time when the nation was created. Obviously that time was back in Exodus. They went into Egypt as a family and emerged 430 years later as a nation. Having "accomplished to scatter the power of the holy people"; all throughout the history of the public entity of the body of Christ, (the pre-cross nation of Israel and the post-cross church) the power of the holy people has been scattered.

Now this has caused me to back up a bit back into Danial 11; which has me scratching my head some more? I've read though this passage several times now and have noticed that in some distinct places, has emerged language that speaks of itself being "end of time" descriptions. Yet at the same time, mixed in with this is language that hearkens back to events that happened at the cross. We have some very distinct time makers here, yet some parallel time sequences that seem to mirror each other in "short duration" / "long duration". For example, we know Jesus preached 3&1/2 years, yet we also have a noticeable historic time reference of 3 & 1/2 millennia; which I'm sure is not mere coincidence.

 _ **The 10 Crowns of Revelation 13's Beast:**_

We know from what the book of Revelation itself says, (also Daniel) that these heads and crowns are kings and kingdoms; and that this beast's existence spans several centuries. What king (kingdom or nation state) disappeared in the 1st century (which spoke blasphemies against God) which makes a reappearance at the end of time still speaking blasphemies against God, which is described in the Scripture as being descended from Edom and has an intimate connection with Jerusalem?

 _That's a rhetorical trick question. :P_

So, if one of these horns / former heads (described in Daniel as a horn & revelation as a head) is a current national entity, who are the other nine, who were part of these historic empires, represented also by these beasts in Daniel and end up making the whore desolate? Well, I scratched my head about that one a while before I decided to overlay a map of the current middle east over the boundaries of the ancient Babylonian, Persian and Greek empires and guess what I got? Within those boundaries; (Babylonian, Persian and Greek empires (having occurred in different eras) overlap each other) currently today are 10 nations. (Egypt, Greece, Turkey, Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, Pakistan and of course Israel (Lebanon had been part of Agrippa II's jurisdiction. It was the last "head" standing of ancient Israel before the destruction (by the sword) of the temple in 70 AD.))

Now another interesting "coincidence" we see is that if we are to take a generalized map of what's called "The Greater Israel Project", we see that also includes 10 nations and / or portions of 10 nations. This includes the east coast of Egypt, Northern Saudi Arabia, about half of Kuwait, a port section in the Persian Gulf that currently belongs to Iran, a little more than half of Iraq, most of Syria, a small port section of Turkey, all of Lebanon, Jordan and of course current Israel.

Connected to this "Greater Israel Project" there are many around the world who believe the current "refugee" flight out of the Middle East (primarily into Europe) is part of a plan to depopulate the area so that it can be conquered by Israel, using the United States and it's military to wage these wars. Now obviously politically we can all see what's going on and it is certainly verifiable by international documents that this "Greater Israel Project" is a goal of the Israeli state. (It's called the "Yinon plan" in Israeli politics.) Is this a fulfillment of Biblical prophecy though?

In some respects this is a little unclear, seeing how just as the timing of the incarnation of Christ was prophesied with clues as to the political back drop; yet other events that were extremely localized in nature, were not well understood by most. With the exception of the individuals Christ's birth was revealed directly too, there was no "glaring signpost event" that announced his birth to the world. So, as it seems to be also with His second coming. It does seem we have clues as to a political backdrop, but how much definition we have of specific events isn't clear either. As with details of Christ's birth being prophesied in the Old Testament, that seemed quite obscure until after it happened. (Christ born in Bethlehem and the killing of the babies for example.) These same types of details about His second coming may also be in the Scriptures. I just don't know where they are, or even if the tidbits I have are being interpreted entirely correctly. All I can say is that there seems to be an awful lot of "interesting coincidences" that fit together.

 _The "star of Bethlehem" is believed by many to not be a supernatural appearance of a particular astronomical body, but an interpretation of planetary positions as they related to ancient astrological signs. This may be true, seeing how the Greek word "wisemen" in the Gospels is also translated "sorcerer" and that no particularly noticeable (to the common man) astronomical event was recorded by any society in the time span of the probable year of Christ's birth. (7 B.C.)_

 _Personally I think this interpretation is the most likely candidate; as there was an alignment of Jupiter and Saturn 3 times that year in the constellation of Pisces. (May 29th, October 3rd, & December 4th) Saturn (also known as Regulus) is the "King Star" and Jupiter is the "King Planet". Pisces is the constellation that consists of two fish, one pointed at heaven and the other at earth. This constellation has had various related meanings over the centuries depending on whether one is talking about the "church age" or "prior age". In both cases, the interpretation of Pisces is the joining of the higher and the lower (conscience or God/man) and thus can easily be interpreted as the symbol of the incarnation. In Roman mythology too, a combining of the "king star" and "king planet" was often associated with the birth of a king. _

_October 3rd of 7 B.C. (which was also a jubilee year) was the Day of Atonement. The Feast of Tabernacles started on the 8th. "And I set my tabernacle among you and my soul shall not abhor you. And I will walk among you, and be your God and ye shall be my people." (Lev 26:11 &12) This was probably the day Jesus was born and also would have been the day the Magi began their trek to find him. May 29th, was probably the first time they notice the planetary alignment, which may have coincided with the birth of John the Baptist? December 4th may have been the day Mary and Joseph brought Jesus into the temple where he was greeted by Anna and Simon, who may have also been anticipating his arrival based on planetary alignment, on account of word from the shepherds that he'd been born, may have gotten around a bit by then. This was just on the front end of Hanukkah, which probably brought people into Jerusalem because of the festival._

 _The next major event would have been the arrival of the Magi into Jerusalem; which occurred some two years later. The Scripture never tells us how many Magi there were, and I believe it's plausible that there may have been more than one group of them who'd converged on Jerusalem at the same time. (Some are have said to come from the east, where other's say they saw his star in the east; which if they had noted it to "settle over Bethlehem" east of them, means they would have been coming from Africa.) These groups of men would have had the resources to travel the distance required over the course of two years and would have been traveling with a sizable entourage that probably would have consisted of wives, children, slaves and soldiers; so there would have been no mistaking their arrival into Jerusalem. It would have been a big deal._

 _Interestingly too, two other astronomical events occurred in 5 B.C., coinciding with the arrival of the Magi. Chinese astronomers noted the appearance of a comet and a super nova. Comets in the ancient world where seen as bad omens. Which may have been the impetus Herod had to seek out and kill the babies in Bethlehem. He may have interpreted it as an omen against him that this king would take his place. Remember Herod wanted to be considered "king of the Jews". On the flip side of this, the Magi would have also been aware of this comet and on account of Herod, being the reason they took different route back home; (whereas an angel came to Joseph personally and told him to take his family to Egypt)._

 _Interestingly, the next comet to appear was in 66 A.D. This comet "hung around" for a year. Of historical events, the first Roman Jewish wars started in 66 A.D. Paul was arrested and brought to Rome the first time about 61 A.D. because he'd been told by the Holy Spirit (as well as several other Christians) to stay out of Jerusalem and he didn't listen. He was probably the last believer God removed (by force) from Jerusalem before it was destroyed. This holding with the warning Jesus gave that when you see armies surrounding Jerusalem to flee the city._

 _ **Revelation's next beast:**_

Now earlier, I gave a "snap shot" explanation of this beast. Here is a bit more. It is described as "having lamb horns and speaks as a dragon". Interesting? This creature is described as "coming out of the land"; whereas the other beast is described as "coming out of the sea". Again here Revelation 17 defines terms for us. It describes "the sea" as "peoples and tongues and nations". This makes sense if we understand that the first beast is an "empire" (a type of global system) that has arisen (or "grown") up among (or "out of") the peoples of the world.

So than, what is this second beast with the lamb's horns? Again, in the Scripture "a lamb" is usually a depiction of Christ. Obviously though, if this beast speaks like a dragon, is giving its ascent to the first beast and telling the nations of the world to worship that beast - it aint Christ!

A couple of interesting things I've observed about this beast though; which may help us confirm it's identity. The most striking thing I realized is that when it comes to the passage at the end of Revelation that talks about entities being thrown into the lake of fire, this "lamb beast" is not mentioned. Interesting, now why is that? It's obviously not being obedient to God, but why is it not thrown into the lake of fire? Part of the clue may come from the lake of fire passage itself. Among those mentioned as being thrown into the lake of fire (besides the first beast, those with it's mark on their foreheads, Satan and death and hell) is "the false prophet". Hummmm now isn't that interesting considering most "false prophets" within Christianity operate within the larger structure of the "cooperate church"; (although individual members of their congregations may or may not be true believers).

Another clue to this "lamb beast's" identity. It comes into existence in earthly time after the first beast; which we know the first beast came to be noticeable about the return to Jerusalem / completion of the Babylonian captivity. It rises up out of the land and has two horns. Now on the beast, horns are ascribed to political entities, kings and empires; but just like this beast isn't a conventional empire in and of itself, I don't think the horns on this lamb beast are conventional kingdoms either.

Next clue: this "lamb beast" comes out of the earth (not the sea). Again here, taking our clue from Scripture itself, Adam being formed from the dust of the earth. Now the last Adam, (also "from the dust of the earth" in that he is incarnated in the likeness of the first Adam (who being created in His image)); that last Adam is Christ. Those "raised from the dust of the earth in Christ" are all those who truly believe. Now what earthly institution are all believers a part of? We are all a part of the church.

So, does this fit together?

The church arises via those born again out of a predeceasing religious system. (The "lamb beast" follows the first beast.)

Those in the church are closely associated with "being raised from the dust". (The entity arises out of the land.)

There's two major tenants (horns) of Christianity - the "catholics" and the "protestants". (I'd classify denominations such as Eastern Orthodox in with the "catholics" primarily based on the historical time of the split (which was long before the Protestant Reformation); also that they are similar in a lot of their practices. Primarily though, Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic have additional books to their Scriptures. )

The "church" being the entity tasked with maintaining the Scriptures and bringing forth the gospel, is not "wholesale" cast into the lake of fire, (even congregations who have not maintained their faithfulness to Christ) because it is basically serving the purpose it was intended for. Once that purpose comes to an end, the entity isn't punished, it's just no longer needed, because the new heavens and new earth have been created.

Now of course no church does this perfectly and there are certainly apostate denominations within Christianity. Despite mass apostasy in most denominations though, there still are enclaves of believers in these individual congregations, who faithfully trust God even in lack of understanding of, or access to Scripture. We are all saved by the blood of Christ through our trust in his all sufficient sacrifice, not by what we intellectually understand about him, or the truth that we have access to. (i.e. actually being able to read a Bible).

This is why I think this "lamb beast" is the cooperate institution of the church. Though politically and socially, much of cooperate Christianity is aligned with the system of the first beast, and "speaks as a dragon"; (the largest support for the Zionist agenda outside of the Zionists themselves, is Christian Zionism; i.e. second beast telling the nations of the world to worship the first). God is still faithful to sustain His people though, who ever they are and where ever they may be. He will not risk destroying ones he came to redeem by indiscriminate destruction of an institution. He did not do that with ancient Israel (although there were many times he threatened to) He won't do that with the church (although likewise, I'm sure there are many times He'd like to!)

 ** _The End of Time:_**

After this apostasy sets in, the world becomes more wicked and suddenly Christ physically returns. Boom that's it, it's judgement day. Humanity is judged, the heavens and earth are recreated, the wicked are cast into the lake of fire and the believers now live in "eternity" with God the Father, Jesus Christ and the Holy Spirit. In this understanding of "end times", the "great tribulation" was the 3.5 years Jesus preached. The "son of perdition" (in dispensational circles is also called "the man of sin" or the "anti-christ") is named in the book of John as Judas Iscariot. (John 17:12)

A small minority (post millennialists) believe we are in the millennium now and that Christ's return had more to do with the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and His kingdom "reigning on earth" than it had to do with a literal physical return. Most orthodox Christians see this teaching as heretical though.

 _Satan "loosed for a little season":_

Now one last "Bible tidbit" I discovered while looking at the passage about Satan being loosed "for a little season", at the end of the millennium. The term "for a little season" is a Greek derivative that we get our term "micron" from. One micron is one millionth of a meter. One meter has 100 centimeters. One millennium has 100 centuries. So if this "little season" is a literal millionth of a millennium; 1,000/1,000,000=.001 of a year. There are 31,536,000 seconds in a year. 31,536,000/1,000,000 (If I calculated correctly) would be 31.536 seconds. I guess _**everyone**_ (including Satan) wants their "half a minute of fame".

 _Where a nuclear missile launched from North Korea would take an estimated 41 minutes to hit Washington D.C. (since 's Hwasong-14 system's max speed is not really known): A nuclear missile traveling between Damascus Syria and Jerusalem Israel at mach 24 (fastest unclassified ICBM missile in U.S. arsenal), would take about 30 seconds. The name Damascus is of foreign origin, so therefore it's native meaning is not known. It is believed to be the oldest continuously inhabited city on Earth. In Hebrew the name is some reference to "the sack full of blood, the similitude of burning" also "silent as the sackcloth weaver". It's said that "Armageddon" / "valley of Josephat" / "valley of Kidron" is east to north east of Jerusalem, some times as far as north of the Sea of Galilee. Just on the other side of the Golan Heights (north of the Sea of Galilee) is Syria and the city of Damascus. Any significance (other than the war currently raging there); or just another "interesting coincidence"? I don't know?)_

* * *

 _(Now on that ….. note; returning to the comparison of the eschatology of Muslims, Christians and Jews.)_

 _ **Jews:**_

Just like Christianity, there is quite a variety of end time belief systems in Judaism that just like the various tenants of Judaism (Reformed to Hassidic) runs a gambit that's just as wide as the varying tenants. A great many of the individuals within these various circles (especially the "liberal" ones) are "spiritual" or actually atheistic and not really believing in any sort of "end time" scenario; (other than maybe humanity greatest hour of collective stupidity, where we annihilate ourselves with a nuclear war).

In the more liberal Jewish circles (what might be called "secular Judaism") there is a lot of borrowing of beliefs that incorporates humanism, philosophy and psychology. This isn't necessarily "bad" from the vanish point of trying to function in and rule a society, seeing how philosophy and humanism do have some degree of moral and ethical tenure that arose out of the age of enlightenment of the late 18th century. It isn't until one starts to run up against increasingly militant politically leftist "activists" (Marxist / Communists and Socialists with communistic leanings) where we start to see problems; (although political leftists in America aren't usually connected to the secular moderates of the more liberal Jewish religion).

Of Jews who do believe in some sort of messiah, most see their messiah as a political figure. This, like the tenants of Judaism, also runs a gambit. For some, the messiah is as "benign" as a "super good" world leader. Someone who's maybe a combination of Gandhi, Mother Teresa and (pick a political figure of your liking). On the other end of the spectrum though are those who believe their messiah will stamp out all opposition to their particular Jewish world view.

 ** _Zionism and the RCC:_**

So since this most recent conversation is about the Roman Catholic Church and the "beast structure"; Rabbinic Judaism's opinion of Roman Catholicism is certainly worth mentioning. From what the Talmud says, the Jewish messiah's first agenda will be to destroy the Roman Catholic church. This of course is a historic reference seeing how the RCC as the first "organized denomination" was the only one in existence at the point the Talmud was being penned. In the more generic sense though, it's easy to see that the injunctions against Christians and Christianity in the Talmud, was never meant to be specific to the RCC, as it is since (presently) inclusive of all Christendom.

That being said, and the RCC's long archival history of interactions with Talmudic Judaism, the bulk of what I've found on the Internet concerning what the Talmud says about Christianity, has been compiled by traditionalist Catholics. Most of this archival information they state is specific to the RCC. This makes sense to their perspective, as many traditionalist Catholics see the Protestant Reformation as just another tool that was used by Satan against the RCC; and not as a movement that had Scriptural and God given legitimacy in and of itself.

I (the writer of this study) am personally not Roman Catholic and I never have been. Yet as an entity that filled a geopolitical / religious / spiritual "theocratical stop gap" at the conclusion of the Old Testament system (in 70 AD); that was very similarly modeled after ancient Israel (as well as being approximately 1500 years in length - another "interesting coincidence"), the RCC has played a very important role in world history. So, taking into account the breadth of that history, it seems to me that the historic relationship of Rome to Zionism was (and I believe still is) a strained one.

 _The Protestant Reformation:_

This of course brings up another interesting observation about the Protestant Reformation; since how it seems that for roughly 1500 years "book ended" on either side of the cross, we have two theocratic geopolitical entities (the nation of ancient Israel and the Roman Catholic church). Five hundred years before the Exodus we come to Abraham, where the patriarchs of faith existed within secular geopolitical kingdoms. Is it just another "interesting coincidence" that the regrowth of secular geopolitical kingdoms begins again about the same time as the Protestant Reformation?

Now couple this with the growth of an ideology "God's chosen people" that started in a legitimate standing before God, that ancient Israel was the "cup holder" of the preservation of the Old Testament Scriptures. Toward the end of ancient Israel's life, "traditions of men" and other writings (the Apostle Paul calls them fables.) creep into this system. The promise to Abraham was given, in that in his "seed" (singular - see the book of Hebrews) all nations of the world would be blessed. That "seed" is Christ. Which in turn, in Him, salvation is available to all people's of the world "every kindred, tongue and nation" both "Jew" and "Gentile" regardless of racial, ethnic, national (and even political) origin.

We see the same thing happen with the Roman Catholic Church. It was indeed also tasked as the "cup holder" of the New Testament Scriptures. Again though when the "traditions of men" and other writings (The Apocrypha is just another collection of fables of Jewish folklore.) creep in; the baton is handed to another entity (the individual congregation of the Protestant Reformation). The underlying current of the Protestant Reformation was all about preservation of the Scripture. Certainly there were people who for their own selfish reasons wanted to get out from under the rule of the RCC; (King Henry the 8th for example) but the Protestant Reformation itself was about the question of what is the true authority of God's word? The Apocrypha did not become "canonized" in the Bible of the RCC until the Reformation.

Which this brings up another "interesting observation" that has just dawned on me. The Eastern Orthodox church may very well have been "the first Catholics" in that the Roman church broke away from ("reformation") that ecclesiastical body over issues of canon shortly after the Roman Empire collapsed. The Eastern Orthodox has more books in their Apocrypha than the Roman Catholic Church does.

 _Now this of course leads to the question of where did the Apocrypha come from?_

 _The Scripture's "chain of evidence":_

In short, the Apocrypha is a collection of tales of Jewish lore that came out of the Babylonian captivity and were part of the Greek Septuagint. The Greek Septuagint was the Greek translation of the Old Testament Hebrew Scripture texts. The Greek Septuagint was first translated probably about 100 to 200 years after the last book of the Old Testament was written in Hebrew. The Apocrypha is not in any of the Hebrew Old Testament texts, (known as the Masoretic Text) nor is it in any of the Hebrew writings that compile what is known as "the Dead Sea Scrolls". There are 3 books of the Apocrypha found in the Greek translation of the Hebrew Text that were found with the Dead Sea Scrolls.

So since we know the Dead Sea Scrolls date to at least the 1st Century, we can ascertain that the other books of the Apocrypha were post 1st century Pharisaic writings that were added into subsequent copies of the Greek translation. Remember how after the temple was destroyed, the Sadducees disappeared and now all Jewish history is filtered through "one set of glasses"? Rabbinic Judaism claims that it's religion and traditions were hundreds of years old by the time Jesus Christ came along. I don't believe this is true, because if it was, there would be written proof of it in the Dead Sea Scrolls. Much of what Judaism has become today, is a "back lash" to Christianity.

Move forward in time to about 370 A.D. and we come to a monk living in Bethlehem who's name was Jerome. (born-340 A.D., died-420 A.D.) Jerome was tasked with the job of translating the Old and New Testaments into Latin. This is where we get the Latin Vulgate from. Now Jerome was familiar with the Apocrypha because it was included in the Greek Septuagint, which was one of the translations he was working with. So he used the Masoretic (Hebrew) text. Multiple copies of the Koinonia Greek New Testament text, the Greek Septuagint (Greek translation of Hebrew) as well as other texts. (I believe these were mostly Aramaic New Testament texts, that were primarily passed to Christendom from the early Egyptian / Palestinian church. I think he also had some texts in Arabic too, but I'm not certain of that.)

So once he finished the Latin Vulgate translation, he bound the books of the Apocrypha together in a separate collection and explained that these were part of the Greek Septuagint, but not found in any other bodies of text. He wrote that they have some historical value to them, but he did not believe they are Divinely inspired. "Here they are though if you want to read them."

So now jump ahead to mid 1500 A.D. The Protestant Reformation has been well underway for about 50 years and on account of Guttenburg's invention of the printing press, the Bible is starting to be translated into other languages. The fist major language group translated was Germanic. (French being a derivative of Latin. The Bible had been translated in to French in 1530 (actually before it was translated into German - 1534) The second major language group was English, which is primarily the 1611 King James. There were other intermediate translations (Tyndale Bible \- 1536, Bishop's Bible \- 1568) that came in the intermediate, which where also consulted when writing the King James; but these Bibles relied heavily upon the German too, so the first actual 100% English Bible was the King James.

Now the King James was created by a committee of Bible scholars who did much the same thing as Jerome. They took all the translations Jerome used, plus the Latin Vulgate, plus the German, plus all the predeceasing English translations and worked on their individual translations until they came to committee to determine the best translations of the individual texts they were assigned to. They agreed on consensus, of what translations held most faithful to the original Greek and Hebrew; at times opting for a very literal translation of a text because they were not quite sure how it fit "theologically", seeing how the nature of the Hebrew language is quite different than the nature of the English language. So once they had compiled all this and made their decisions, we now have the Authorized King James version.

Hebrew is very pictorially descriptive. English is more like New Testament Greek, whereas it's a language of word nuance to convey meaning, not necessarily descriptive of the action of verb, or characteristics of the noun. For example, Hebrew has several words for child. "suckling" = infant, "walks with tripping feet" = toddler, "runs with vigor" = pre-pubescent child, "shakes out the mane" = adolescent who's entered puberty (usually a boy), "maid" = menstruating female who's eligible for marriage (historically girls in their late teens, since people in the past entered puberty later) "man" / "woman" = adults. Although with the exception of "infant" and "maiden", the English translators rarely made these age distinctions. Some of that was because the prevailing belief at that time, was that children were just miniature adults. There was not a whole lot of understanding about how developmental stages relate to brain growth and mylonitization of neurons. Obviously ancient Hebrews did not have this medical knowledge either, yet they did account for the recognition of the stages based on external observation, as many tribal cultures do.

Jump forward again to the late 19th and through the 20th centuries and we see other Bible translations emerge. Some of these translations are into previously untranslated languages, while others are "rehashes" or "modernizations" of already established languages that have Bible translations. Some of these translations aren't bad, some are horrendous. Today though, because of the advent of the Internet and computer programs that can catalogue and compare words and texts much quicker than individuals, or translation committees; we have a vast wealth of resources wherewith to study the Scriptures. In centuries past, what took people decades to compile and publish concordances, today takes a good computer program a couple of weeks.

Personally I like the King James, it is the translation I'm most familiar with and I think it is still one of the best English translations: (although I am not a "King James only" person). I don't think "King Jimmy" is infallible. I have found errors in the King James as well as errors in the Strong's concordance; but I still think it is one of the most faithful to the Hebrew and Greek translations to English. Of on-line Bibles, I also like the Blue Letter Bible and frequently use "Biblegateway" for looking up verses.

 _The Jesuits:_

So from here I'll delve into the Jesuits a bit, which will be the conclusion of this chapter seeing how it's already so long. The Jesuits tie many of the loose ends together, as to how the Vatican relates to national entities and other large organizations. Now as stated before, there's an awful lot of historical data in the Vatican archives and much of what we know about the Jesuits historically, comes from Vatican archives.

The Jesuits were started by a man named Ignatius of Loyola; a military commander who's career ended much to prematurely for his own personal liking. After having been seriously wounded, he's said to have spent some time in a cave perfecting his personal disciplines. He'd gathered a small group of fellow disciplinarians, whom once they felt they'd collectively come to a level of their own satisfaction, they offered themselves to the Vatican as a Counter Reformation force. This is how and why the Jesuits (and offshoot orders like them) have taken on disciplines that are so militaristic in nature; of which the intelligence and special forces arms of many nations' defenses are modeled off of their codes of conduct and brotherhood. Although the Jesuits have been in many academic fields and researchers of science and medicine, they are best known as a quasi militaristic disciplinary order, as well as being well "rumored" to be involved in many underground conspiracies of world politicking.

Understanding the Jesuits in this light makes them less mysterious and gives them more of an understandable context, when we consider that they are basically functioning as the intelligence arm of the RCC. Yes, the Jesuits have infiltrated the Masons, they have infiltrated national governments, as well as Protestant denominations and most likely Islamic organizations also. This is true and I don't think much of it is not publicly admitted, although "wished not to be talked about" would be quite accurate. The Jesuits are an organization with secrets, but they are not a "secret organization".

Now the Papacy has had a "love / hate" relationship with the Jesuits, having disbanded them at one point after the Counter Reformation; only to have them welcomed back later, once the Free Mason's became a growing concern. Now there are different takes on this; (claims that they'd become more powerful than the Pope) which probably has some accuracy too it, as many arms of "the deep state" are actually more powerful than other visible offices of the named government.

Yet are the Jesuits as dangerous as some people say they are? I suppose that may be a bit hard to determine, as the power of the RCC itself has wained a lot; although RCC representatives are certainly present in the political life of many nations. Bishops and Cardinals have been staples at U.S. Presidential inaugurations for some years now. Even that being the case though; one must admit that it's not common to hear accusations of "the protocols of the learned Jesuits of….."

* * *

 _So finally, this (longer than anticipated) chapter concludes my study here on the Roman Catholic Church and its place in thus "grand scheme" of "end time things". Next I will continue on with the history of Zionism as it relates to events surrounding World War I and World War II._


	15. Babylon - Jerusalem and Donald Trump

**Babylon Mother of Harlots - Jerusalem and Donald Trump**

 _Well, just as I had done with North Korea, I have a chapter to interject here. US president Donald Trump announced a day or so ago, that the US will now recognize Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and move the embassy from Tel Aviv. So now I've seen all sorts of people posting on YouTube and the web, about how this is some fulfillment of prophecy; Trump is the hero, (or the anti-christ), or "whatever". So I've decided to address this question here. What exactly is going on?_

* * *

So I decided to take to my Bible again. "Babylon the mother of harlots" and the "10 horns that make her desolate". What does that mean?

First off, let's establish who "Babylon the mother of harlots" is. This is in Revelation 17. The harlot is described as:

 **Kings of the earth have committed fornication with.**

 **Inhabitants of the earth are made drunk with the wine of her fornication.**

 **Sitting on a scarlet colored beast which has 7 heads and 10 horns.** (Same beast as described in Revelation 13.)

 **Dressed in purple and scarlet, decked with gold, precious stones and pearls, having a gold cup filled with abominations and filthiness of her fornication.**

 **Has "Mystery Babylon the great, the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth" written on her forehead.**

 **Was drunk with the blood of the saints and the martyrs of Jesus.** (What city on earth, other than Jerusalem has seen the most martyrdom of the people of God?)

 **The angel describes the beast as "ascended out of the bottomless pit and goes into perdition" and they who's names are not written in the Lamb's book of life will wonder at the beast who "was, and is not and yet is".**

"Ascending" and "going into perdition"; (perdition means destruction) I believe are time references for the life of the beast. Revelation 11 opens with instructions to John to measure the temple. Don't measure the court of the gentiles which is trampled under foot 42 months. Now 42 months could have two correct interpretations, because there are two time spans that actually fit as "interesting coincidences"; but I think one in particular is a more likely candidate for the best / most accurate interpretation.

First off, if 42 months is a equation to 4200 years, counting Old and New Testament eras, we come to approximately 200 years before the time of Abraham. Abraham's father was 75 when he started to have children and 130 years old when Abraham was born. We know the first book of the Bible that was written was the book of Job. It is part of the literature of the ancient world before the Torah was penned by Moses.

Archeologically, we find there is record of a book (collection) in ancient Sumerian writings (Adapa and Athahasis) which contains the flood story and the book of Job. We know Abraham originally came from Ur, which was part of the Sumerian empire. Adapa and Athahasis are recorded to have appeared in the Sumerian library about 2200 B.C. There are also older reference to the story of Job that date between 2400 and 2500 B.C., so we know at least the oral tradition of the story had existed for a while before the completed written script.

So I conclude that it is entirely possible that Abraham's father Terah wrote the book of Job. Terah also left with Abraham out of Ur of the Chaldees. The time frames all fit together.

So thus I believe it's possible that one interpretation of the 42 months this passage is talking about, concerns the time frame of the writing of the Scripture; starting with the book of Job. This starting with Abraham and his father Terah, would actually be the founding of the "cooperate body of Christ" era(s) (Old and New Testaments, founding of / timespan when humanity possess the written Scripture.) Now the next interpretation, will explain why I don't think this particular one is the most accurate.

Next Revelation 11 talks about two witnesses prophesying 1260 days, who are killed by the beast that is ascending (present active tense) out of the bottomless pit. Now in the Hebrew (lunar) calendar, 1260 days is also 42 months. 1260 years from Exodus (1447 B.C.) brings us to 187 B.C. This is the approximate time of when archeologists guess the Hebrew portion of the Bible was "finalized". (The Masoretic Text went through several compilations and editing before it was presented as the form we've seen for the past 2200 years.)

Following the 1260 days of prophesying, the beast ascending out of the bottomless pit kills the witnesses and their bodies lay dead in the street for 3&1/2 days. Now the present active participle (the beast ascending out of the bottomless pit) is a continuous action; which means for the duration of the 3&1/2 days, this beast is ascending and killing the witnesses. This is always "present tense". Again, (another "interesting coincidence") the total time span of the proclamation of the Scriptures runs from Exodus in 1447 B.C. to 2033 A.D. (3&1/2 days = 3500 years) Also, during this time we see prophets and believers who bear witness to the truth of the Scriptures are continuously martyred.

Adding to these "interesting coincidences", the period of the "temple's life span" (the Old Testament), running from Exodus to the completion of the Old Testament Scripture fits into the 1260 year time span.

So yes, it is of many "interesting coincidences" that all these time frames fit. Add to this Jesus preaching for 3&1/2 years, or 42 months, which is also 1260 days.

Now here is where I burst my own bubble on the first 42 month interpretation. In looking through all the other passages in the Bible, there is only one other place I found "42 months". That is in Revelation 13, that talks about the beast "being allowed to continue for 42 months". No where have I found a month / year conversion as is seen with day; (a day is as 1000 years, a thousand years is as a day). Also, I did not find any explanation as to any significance for the number 42. Actually it was only used in a few other places to indicate numbers of nouns; (I.E. 42 cities, 42 decedents of…. etc.) and no where else did 42 indicate any passage of time.

So when did this beast in Revelation come to formation and begin to ascend out of the bottomless pit? Well keeping in mind that it's goal is to kill those who bear the testimony of God, seemingly connected to the written Word, it would have started with when ever the Word began to come about. Now is this beast's association only of the written Word, or does it go back further than that? Now another passage in Revelation talks about "the serpent the Devil of old" which gives power to the beast, obviously implying that the Devil and the beast are not the same entity. Yet if the beast is a religious system type of entity, it seems logical that it would have had it's foundations at the first institution of a religious system. (I.E. seems that this would have been about the time of Exodus.) This fits with both passages in Revelation. 42 months (1260 years of the Old Testament) the temple is trod under foot, but also 42 months (4200 years of the entire Bible's existence), the beast is allowed to blaspheme.

Now though, we find in Revelation that Babylon the mother of harlots is riding on this beast, so thus it may also seem reasonable to conclude that the beast's existence is closely connected to the founding of Jerusalem.

So when was Jerusalem founded? Now, that we don't really know. The only thing the Scripture tells us of it's founding, is that "dad" was an Amorite, "mom" was a Hittite and they had come out of the land of Canaan (Ur / the Sumerian empire). (Ezekiel 16:3) Now the Amorites were descendants of Shem (depicted by the Egyptians as being Europeans with light skin and blue eyes) and the Hittites were descendants of Ham who were said to be dark skinned. (Possibly African?) Now the first record of the name Jerusalem (or rather the title "city of peace") comes from the Egyptians and is dated around 2000 B.C. Now this does fit together with the time of Abraham and the possible penning of the book of Job.

Now to add to the "complications" of this, back in Genesis, we have Abraham being met by the king of Salem. The meeting was recorded to have taken place at some point before the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Now is "Salem" the forerunner of "Jerusalem"? This is the legend, but to my knowledge, it has not been archeologically proven that there was a king Melchizedek who ruled over the geographical area that would later become Jerusalem. Besides this, Melchizedek is believed by most Bible scholars to be a theophany.

 **The seven heads are seven mountains on which the woman sits.**

 **Associated with the seven mountains are seven kings; five are fallen, one is and the other is yet to come, and when he does will continue a short space.**

 **The beast that was and is not, even he is the eighth. (king)** Now this was already covered in a pervious chapter of this study concerning the Herodian dynasty.

 **Ten horns which thou saw are ten kings which have received no kingdom as yet; but receive power as kings one hour with the beast.**

 **These have one mind and shall give their power and strength to the beast.**

 **They make war with the Lamb and His saints. And the Lamb overcomes (conquers) them.** This too was also previously covered when talking about another "interesting coincidence" that currently there resides 10 nations within the boundaries of what had been the Babylonian / Persian / Greek empires, as well as 10 nations within the projected boundaries of the "Greater Israel Project".

To be of "one mind" in the modern context of the nations in question, may be a reference to these nations being predominately Muslim?

The second segment of this group of verses is quite interesting though. The Lamb conquers them (doesn't say he destroys them off hand.) Then the passage goes on to say those that are with him are called and chosen and faithful. (More on this in a minute.)

 _ **Next question:**_

What does it mean to _"receive power as kings one hour with the beast"_?

When I went through all the passages in the Scriptures that spoke of "one hour" it was always in the context of judgement. "One hour" was always the bitter end leading up to the final catastrophe. Several of the passages were talking about the time frame of the crucifixion and most of the rest were talking about the time frame just before Judgement Day. What that time frame consisted of, was not always clear. In the passages concerning the crucifixion, it was a literal hour. In the passages concerning the time span just before the final judgement though, it was much more vague.

 _ **Revelation 18:**_

One clue though came out of Revelation 18. This is the chapter that talks about the fall of Babylon the mother of harlots. Within an hour, she is destroyed and burning with fire. All the merchants, ship makers, kings and peoples of the world witness this spectacle. They all mourn the fall of Jerusalem, yet in this chapter, there is no indication that they understand yet, that Judgment Day is about to follow upon the heals of the city's destruction. The city is burning with fire, but it is pretty clear from the context of the passage, that Christ has not yet returned and judgement has not yet been passed upon the earth.

This passage in Revelation 18, seems to convey Jerusalem's fall in a sequence of 3 occurrences.

 _ **1st :**_ An angel descends "with great power and the earth is lighted with his glory". Now the passage doesn't seem to indicate that the people of earth yet understand what is going on. The angel makes a declaration. Babylon the mother of harlots is fallen, is the habitation of devils, the hold of every foul spirit, and a cage of every unclean and hateful bird. For all nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication, and the kings of the earth have committed fornication with her, and the merchants of the earth are waxed rich through the abundance of her delicacies. _**(Sounds an awful lot like our current global economic / political system doesn't it!)**_

Following this angel's declaration; another "voice from heaven" tells all the believers to leave the city. Once they have all exited. Jerusalem's judgement begins.

 _ **2nd**_ _:_ Here is the second phase. Note that it is the believers that have exited the city who are told "Reward her even as she rewarded you, and double unto her double according to her works: in the cup which she hath filled fill to her double. (7) How much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, so much torment and sorrow give her: for she saith in her heart, I sit a queen, and am no widow, and shall see no sorrow. (8) Therefore shall her plagues come in one day, death, and mourning, and famine; and she shall be utterly burned with fire: for strong is the Lord God who judges her.

This "comes in one day" and her destruction is in "one hour".

The next several verses talk about the kings of the earth and the merchants bewailing from a far off (for fear of her judgement) because no one buys their merchandise. On the other hand though, God tells the saints to rejoice that all their blood will now be avenged.

Note though that even at this phase, most people are still not aware that Judgement Day is coming, probably within the literal hour.

 ** _I'm totally hypothesizing here, but this seems to me to be a possible scenario. These 10 surrounding nations (crowns on the beast) have either dropped or exploded nuclear bomb(s) in Jerusalem. When we get back to Revelation 17; I'll explain that the language of "making the whore desolate" is in the passive voice and comparing chapters 17 and 18, probably has multiple meanings. From this point in the sequence of the book of Revelation, it does not appear from this passage that there has been any preparation for war. Chapter 19 though does talk about armies gathered. So thus, it appears from this passage that what ever happens, probably will be perceived as an accident._**

 _ **There's also no indication in this passage that any other city besides Jerusalem has been destroyed. So how ever this has gone down; "someone" has either disarmed their ability to strike back, or via by Divine intervention, they have a massive system failure and the strike causes their own nukes to explode.**_

 _ **This would undoubtedly shut everything down; the banking system, economies, everything would come to a grinding halt immediately. It would be broadcast via satellite all over the world and all of humanity would be in utter shock.**_

 _ **3rd :**_ The final phase is direct Divine destruction. The passage says an angel throws a mountain like a mighty millstone into the sea. This very well may be a rock from outer space; I don't know? But this is certainly the point where all of humanity understands that this judgment is of God.

 _ **Revelation 19 and 20:**_

Now I'm going to talk a little bit about chapter 19 and chapter 20 before I go back to the end of chapter 17. 19 and 20 are "weird", because 19 obviously is a continuation of 18 and within 19 we see language that looks like the final resurrection. By the end of Chapter 19 we see the lake of fire, the King on his white horse with his army coming to earth. In this chapter we see human armies gathered and surrounding the "beloved city". The "beloved city" seems to be made up of only true believers and if anyone attempts to do them harm, they are struck down by God himself. Understanding too though, that this portion of the chapter may be describing what's happening in the unseen spiritual realm; whereas the previous chapter describes the physical realm. I don't know. This is what makes this book so confusing.

Then we get to chapter 20 and it seems to be a condensed rehash of previous chapters. The same elements are mentioned (beast, lake of fire, final resurrection) and the same sequence is followed.

Now granted, events that surrounded the writing of the New Testament can also be plugged into these scenarios. This is what makes Revelation so confusing. The same events in the same sequence happened in the book of Acts. (Jerusalem was corrupt, the believers left, Jerusalem was destroyed etc.) Even the numbers can be plugged into different time frames, as has already been demonstrated. So where does the "time loop" stop and start over, isn't always really clear. I certainly understand that it can be hard to follow, and I don't know why; but that just seems to be the way the book was written.

 _ **Back to Revelation 17:**_

 **The waters which the whore sits on are people of a multitude of nations and tongues.** This fits with the make up of both 1st century, as well as current Jerusalem.

 **The 10 horns make the whore desolate and naked and shall eat her flesh and burn her with fire.**

 **For God has put in their hearts to fulfill His will and to agree and give their kingdom unto the beast until the words of God shall be fulfilled.**

Now this set of verses is interesting. First off, the 10 horns (or nations) make Jerusalem desolate, yet they do it in the passive voice! This tells us something. This portion, does not appear to be a literal war. They also make her naked. I.E. she has no covering. They eat her flesh. This word flesh is also used in the context of "conquering the flesh". Then (future tense) she is burned with fire.

Now the next verse "For God has put it in their hearts to fulfill His will…." He has granted it in their hearts, for one point, at one point in time, to actively fulfill His will and "agree to give their kingdom (the (singular) kingdom that belongs to them) unto the beast until the words of God shall be fulfilled." (Noting that it appears that once the word of God are fulfilled they get their "kingdom" back.)

The mix of language in these verses is quite interesting. We have "nations" (or rather the portion there of that makes them a political entity) relinquishing their (singular) kingdom to fulfill the will of God by relinquishing that kingdom to the power of the beast. Some of these people are eventually "conquered" by the Lamb and declared to be "with him", "called", "chosen" and "faithful."

Now to get a really solid grip on what appears to be going on here; let's meander back to the 1st century a bit, because I believe there is a parallel here. Back in the 1st century, Jesus warned the people of that generation that when they see armies surrounding Jerusalem to get out of the area. The book of Acts tells us that this is exactly what happened. The Christians all left Jerusalem and the surrounding areas; so when the Roman army came, they weren't in the way.

And now, here is what appears to be happening again. (This was just gone over / verified by chapter 18 where the believers are actually told to leave the city.)

One of the things this current conflict in the Middle-East has created is reportedly large numbers of Muslims converting to Christianity. There are also reports of Christians leaving Jerusalem because they don't feel safe there any more, on account of a growing population of radical Jews vandalizing property and making life difficult. (Interesting huh?) Also interesting though is that especially in Iraq, and parts of Syria, numbers of Christians are beginning to return to reconstruct their countries.

Now are these converts actually "making the whore desolate" by their conversions? (Also leaving Jerusalem - which is exactly what happened in the 1st century.) Are they leaving the city "desolate" and "naked" (with no covering - i.e. preaching of the gospel), eating her flesh by becoming Christians and leaving? (Revelation 19 - an angel calls for the fowls of the air to come eat the flesh of men, captains, kings, horses etc. Again, "weird" - Even after looking it up in other passages, I don't really understand what it means to "eat their flesh"?) Then at a future point, she will be burned with fire. Also in James 5 we find similar language of a wicked man's riches consuming his flesh with fire until the day of judgement.

One last thing of all this, I think is worth mentioning. Could it be a signal to us of the rest of the world (those who know how to "read the signs of the times" as is "revealed unto His servants the prophets") when Palestinian Christians / converts to Christianity in particular, start to leave Israel and especially Jerusalem "en mass"? (This is already happening.) Granted this may continue over the course of several years, or even a decade and keep in mind the hardline Zionist "Christians" are not going to leave. So, I don't know, but I think this is something worthy of being aware of.

 **The woman is that great city which reigns over the kings of the earth.**

Now in other parts of Revelation "the great city" is identified as Jerusalem. "which is spiritually called Sodom and Egypt where also our Lord was crucified." Revelation 11:8

"And the great city was divided into three parts, (a Christian segment, a Jewish segment and a Muslim segment) and the cities of the nations fell: and great Babylon came into remembrance before God, to give unto her the cup of the wine of the fierceness of His wrath." Revelation 16:19 **(The final judgement on Jerusalem comes directly from God.)**

"And a mighty angel took up a stone like a great millstone and cast it into the sea, saying: Thus with violence shall the great city Babylon be thrown down, and shall be found no more at all." Revelation 18:21 **(The final judgement on Jerusalem, coming directly from God, comes at the end of time - i.e. Judgement day.)**

"And he carried me away in the spirit to the great and high mountain and shows me the great city, the holy Jerusalem, descending out of the heaven from God." Revelation 21:10 **(Corrupt Jerusalem is replaced with the new Jerusalem in the new heavens and new earth.)**

 _ **Conclusion:**_

Now, tying this all together in our modern / political climate? Does any of this make sense in the current state of affairs? (Other than if a nuclear bomb goes off in Jerusalem, I'm going to "look up" in anticipation that my "redemption draws nigh.") Obviously the Zionists / Dispensationalists have a different take on this (along with their own set of expectations of what will happen) and I'm well aware that many of them believe Trump signing the legislation to recognize Jerusalem as Israel's capital, is a fulfillment of prophecy.

I've gotten myself into plenty of trouble on Facebook arguing that God does not see Israel, or the Jews any more favorably than he sees any other political kingdom or group of people. Oh and how many times have I been called an anti-Semite / racist / bigot etc.

"I got friends in safe spaces. If you don't go with us than you must be racist! That's our catch phrase. Where's my Latte'?…"

Sorry folks but there's only one salvation plan and everyone who comes is coming through the blood!

Can I get an AMEN on that?

Back on topic though; It does seem to me, that just as in the 1st century, when the leaders of the religious structure were trying to force God's hand to fulfill prophecy as they saw it. They believed starting a war with the Roman Empire would force the Messiah onto the scene. Now the Messiah did show up in the midst, it's just they didn't want him. So now, as was with then; except we have two groups of leaders of two different religious structures who've joined together to try and force a common agenda. (And two different religious structures that are ideologically worlds apart "to boot"! Can anyone other than me see the dark spiritual forces at work in that unholy alliance?) The Muslims of course too have their own elements of this same phenomena; it's just they are not as organized and in possession of as much economic power as the Zionist groups are.

People get all mad at Donald Trump, when in reality he's not the real problem. He's just a portion of the iceberg that can be seen.

* * *

 _Now, barring any other interesting political event before I publish my next chapter - back to the early part of the 20th century._


	16. Zechariah 13 - Jerusalem

**Zechariah 13**

 _ **(Precursor to Ancient and Modern Parallels)**_

Oopses, "lied" again. This next chapter will deal with another passage about Jerusalem, that has come to my attention: Zechariah 14.

Now before I actually get into studying the words of Zechariah 14, I think it's important to point out something in Zechariah 13. Specifically the portion of 13 that talks about "strike the shepherd and the sheep shall scatter". I bring this passage up because the New Testament tells us exactly what it means, which may help us too in figuring out some of this "time reference" stuff.

" **Strike the shepherd…."** Matthew 36:31, Mark 14:27

Now chapter 13 is rather short; it's only 9 verses and opens with language obviously related to Christ's first coming.

" **In that day there shall be a fountain opened to the house of David and to the inhabitants of Jerusalem for sin and for uncleanness."**

The next verse talks about purging idols from the land and driving out unclean spirits.

The following verses though are quite interesting. They start out talking about a prophet who is "thrust through" by his "father" and "mother". (I'll get to that in a minute.)

As I started to dig through the Hebrew in this passage, the English translation says "any" (that shall prophesy), yet that word (any) is masculine and makes reference to a particular prophet the passage speaks of, who has "wounds in his hands"; yet also seems to be conveying the inclusion of those who bring the message of this prophet with "the wounds in his hands". Now the "implication" that this is talking about Jesus Christ seems pretty clear to me.

 _Verse 4 says:_

" **And it shall come to pass in that day, that the prophets shall be ashamed every one of his vision, when he hath prophesied; neither shall they wear a rough garment to deceive:"**

Now this verse is kind of "odd" in the Hebrew, because the "vision" that these "prophets" are "ashamed of" is the vision of "him when he hath (has / does) prophesied". They are not ashamed of their own visions, they are ashamed of the "vision" (manifestation) of the prophet with the wounds in his hands, and those who proclaim his message.

" **neither shall they** (those bearing the message of the prophet with the wounds in his hands) **wear** (cloth themselves) **in a rough** (disheveled hair / appearance) **garment** (robe that appears goodly and abundant) **to deceive** (an untrue, failing, dead lie that will not submit itself to the truth)".

 _Yeah, that's a mouthful!_

What its saying though is those that bear the message of Christ, do not wrap themselves in a goodly looking garments, although they themselves having "disheveled hair" to proclaim a deceitful message evidenced by its (their) lack of submitting themselves to the truth. (Disheveled hair I think is a reference to obvious sin in their lives, that they are liars and disobedient to the moral commands of God, yet they are wrapped in garb that looks "righteous" on the surface.)

 _ **Now, back to this prophet who is "thrust through" of his "father" and "mother"?**_

Now obviously we know in earthy terms Jesus's literal mother was Mary; and having been conceived by the Holy Spirit, his Father was God.

In "religious" terms though, who are Christ's "father" and "mother"; who call him a false prophet and thrust him through? Is this just another "interesting coincidence" that points us to the two cooperate entities who were charged with the task of guardians of the Scriptures: Ancient Israel and the Catholic Church? The two beasts of Revelation; (the second of which now includes apostate protestant congregations as well. I.E. denominations with extra-Scriptural revelation.) The 1500 year (a piece) existence there of? Does any of this mean anything, or is it all just more "interesting coincidences"?

Abraham was called "the father of many nations". Jacob who's name was changed to "Israel" was the "father" of that nation. Compare this to when ever Paul (Peter or whomever) makes reference to the "church" (cooperate entity); it's always in the feminine.

Compare this to the language about Jerusalem's "father" and "mother". The "north" / "south" racial polar opposites of humanity. The actual literal city today being the epicenter of the convergence of the world's three major monotheistic religions. Rabbinic Judaism's extra Scriptural folk lore that's mixed with apostate Christian (Gnostic and other) folk lore to create Islam. Does that really mean anything, or is it just more "interesting (and scary) coincidences"?

Let's move on to the next verse:

" **But he shall say, I am no prophet, I am an husbandman; for man taught me to keep cattle from my youth."**

I'm no spokesman, I am a male bondservant of the earth, for man (Adam in the generic sense) taught me to purchase (acquire) by reason of / from (among) my youths (children).

And lastly in chapter 13, verses 8 and 9:

" **And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith the Lord, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left therein.**

 **9) And I will bring the third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The Lord is my God."**

Verses 8 and 9 I find interesting in that a Jewish researcher in 2013 made quite a splash when he declared that the "real" Jews of the "Diaspora" are primarily those who never left the Middle-East. Eran Elhaik along with an Israeli French historian named Shlomo Sand; have met much backlash and criticisms for their assertions that most modern Jews are not Semitic. Although it is true that the Ashkenazi, Sephardic and Mizrahi people groups have a common genetic marker that did originate in the Middle-East, just about every other ethnic group in the Middle-East has that same genetic marker (as do many non-Jewish Europeans). So for those who want to immigrate to Israel under the "right of return" stipulation in their laws; this creates some problems for Israel's immigration office.

So here we go, strait out of Zechariah 13 verse 8: "…. in all the land…. two parts shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left therein." Compare this to Roman's 9, as well as other passages in the New Testament that talk about believers being "refined by fire". So could it be true that the Palestinian Christians are actually the distant descendants of the tribe of Benjamin, who survived the destruction of Judea in the 1st century, because they left Jerusalem and scattered across the Middle-East; or is that just another "interesting coincidence"?

Another last "tidbit" that popped into my head, as we have been tossing around the question of the 10 nations of the book of Revelation, that make Babylon the mother of harlots desolate. This "tidbit" comes strait out of the second book of Acts. 10 nations / geographical areas are mentioned and guess what? All these were part of the empires of the beasts in the book of Daniel!

 **Acts 2:**

9\. Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, _**(Iran)**_ and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, _**(Iraq)**_ and in Judaea, _**(Palestine)**_ and Cappadocia, in Pontus, _**(Turkey)**_ and **(Asia)** ,

10\. Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in **(Egypt)** , and in the parts of **(Libya)** about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, _**(Italy)**_ Jews and proselytes,

11\. Cretes _**(Greece)**_ and **(Arabians)** , we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God.

Also note what's happened here in Acts; a great multitude believe and are baptized. Acts 2:41 says: "Then they that gladly received his word were baptized: and the same day there were added unto them about three thousand souls."

This event in Acts correlates with the passive language in Revelation about making the whore desolate. Where all these conversions have taken place; (both in the 1st century as well as today) these converts take down the beast system. Could this be what it means when it talks about the head being wounded in Revelation? (I.E. how the head was wounded?) Old Testament Israel as a religious entity is dismantled as people come to faith and exit the system. After this, the shell of the system (the disobedient portion of the nation) that is left, is annihilated by the Roman army; only to reemerge nearly 2000 years later.

* * *

 _Next segment; we will take a look at some interesting things about the Herodian Dynasty and compare them to some interesting things in 20th century history._


	17. Ancient Comparisons: (120 years)

**Ancient Comparisons**

 _This chapter again, due to length is divided up into two segments; the first dealing with ancient history and the second dealing with modern history._

* * *

 _Here we go!_

 _ **Interesting pieces of ancient secular history:**_

At current, my church's adult Sunday school is studying the book of Genesis. We just completed a segment on Noah and the flood; of which keeps spilling around in my head how Jesus referenced Noah's flood to the end of time. "As it was in the days of Noah, so shall it be in the days of the son of man, for men were eating and drinking, marrying and given in marriage until the day Noah entered into the ark and the flood came and destroyed them all."

Now Noah began building the ark 120 years before the flood. When I began to ponder this 120 year time span and compare it to events that surrounded the Herodian dynasty, some interesting correlations began to emerge.

The reign of the Herodian dynasty in it's entirety lasted 130 years. (37 BC to 93 AD). 121 years prior to 93 AD is the year a particular military general who's sir name was "Agrippa" (Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa) recognizes and declares Augustus Caesar the "consul" (top elected official - I.E. "Emperor") of the newly formed / declared "Roman Empire" which was "incorporated" the following year in 28 BC. This declaration followed on the heals of a census and purge of the Roman senate. So here is the starting of the 120 year "clock". It begins with the "incorporation" of the Roman Empire.

27 B.C. though was also the year (believed) that the new Roman calendar began, starting with year 1, the first year of Augustus's "top elected official" (emperorship) reign. By the time the last king of the Herodian dynasty dies in 93 A.D. (putting a distinct end to the Jewish nation); 120 years have passed. Now the emperorship of Augustus Caesar marks the beginning of an era where things are set into motion politically for the Messiah to come on the scene. The death of the last Herod marks the end. Was this the 120 years of "building the ark" that God gave the Jewish nation in the days of Christ? Is this a prototype of the end of time; when the final judgement (by fire, not water) comes upon this current universe?

I'm not sure, but let's take a look at some of this stuff.

 _ **Background Historical Note**_ :

 _This Roman general, just like Herod the Great, was a prolific builder and proponent of creating an infrastructure for the empire. General Agrippa's legions built much of the aqueduct and sewer system for the city of Rome. King Herod built harbors, cities, military installations and revamped the Jewish temple. General Agrippa built roads, amphitheaters, aqueducts, bath houses and is believed to have started the Pantheon._

Let's take a look at some "interesting coincidences" about Roman history.

Now the sir name "Agrippa" in Latin, does not have a Latin Origin. The Roman's believed the name was of Greek origin, yet the only record of the name and it's possible meaning comes from the Hebrew people. "Agrippa" was a Jewish family name, believed to have originated with the Hellenistic Jews, who came out of the Babylonian captivity. The postulation is that the Greek name is a combination of two other Greek words which comes to mean "tamer of wild horses"; but history admits that the actual origin is unknown.

Yet, there are no Greek or Roman families with the sir name "Agrippa". So this general who was so close to Augustus could very well have been of Hellenistic Jewish lineage; although from the Roman perspective, secular history has never put these two together. It's unknown if General Agrippa's family was distantly related to the Judean side of Herod the Great's family, as the general's greatest feat isn't noted until he wins the battle of Actium in 31 B.C.

 _ **Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa:**_

General Agrippa is first mentioned in history as the companion of Octavius when Julius Caesar is killed in 44 B.C. He served in various capacities as both military general and consulate administrator before Octavius becomes "Emperor Augustus". He spends some time deployed to the Germanic frontier where he fights a series of campaigns before returning to Rome. He works closely with Octavius and finally defeats General Gnaeus Pompey after fortifying and reorganizing the harbor in the bay of Naples. He finally conquers Pompey's fleet, after Octavius had suffered a series of naval defeats in the Mediterranean Sea. Following this is a series of brokerages between Octavius and Marc Antony; the final showdown which concluded with the battle of Actium in 31 B.C. The defeat of Antony marked the end of any other serious threat Octavian was facing to his position as leader of Rome.

So General Agrippa is said to have come from "humble origins" and though he was an outstanding military leader and Augustus Caesar's "right hand man" in the literal building of the empire, (having earned much respect of the people) he was in great disfavor with the Roman aristocracy, because he did not come from a wealthy family. Matter of fact, General Agrippa may have actually been a foreigner to the empire, having earned his citizenship through military service granted to him by Octavius?

Since the sir name is said to be of Jewish origin, there may have (at one point) existed a familial lineage record for the Agrippa family, which may have been part of the records Herod destroyed? (Interesting? This hole in history gets deeper.) Herod may have destroyed these records for other political reasons beyond his own messianic desires. For if Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa, was actually of "greater Jewish origin" than Herod, others may have been looking to him as their messiah, since he much more "fit the bill" as a leader than Herod did. Now from the position of power General Agrippa held, King Herod could not touch him. So if part of the destruction of these family lineages had to do with this general; that would make some sense.

Marcus Vipsanius Agrippa was of a keen military mind. He was also an efficient administrator. He held the second highest position in the empire under Caesar and was highly respected by Augustus himself. (Sounds a lot like Joseph and Pharaoh. He was actually adopted by Augustus as his son.) He was also greatly respected by the people for his efforts to better their lives in the vast building projects he completed. General Agrippa was in an interesting position in the empire; because although he came to the table with no personal resources, he had acquired great access to much resources, both of wealth and man power. (Which in this sense he had a real advantage over King Herod.) The general was the second in command of the military (part of his declaration of Octavius as Emperor in 28 B.C. included declaring him "commander and chief" of the army). General Agrippa also appears to have had a sense of smarts and "political humility" that was foreign to Herod; whereas he apparently understood that maintaining a subordinate position to Augustus, helped him maintain his position of power. Although Augustus Caesar was the head of the empire, General Agrippa ran the show.

So of my speculative questions here in regards to General Agrippa's family origins? If I'm correct, this brings up an interesting possible perspective on the unfolding of history as it relates to God's salvation plan. If General Agrippa was indeed born to a Jewish family who at least taught him the moral attributes of the Mosaic law, he very well may have been the impetus used by God to influence Augustus in the moral realm. Thus in a sense serving by proxy as a "political messiah" to the Jewish nation, who was about to be confronted with their real Messiah. Also of an interesting irony, if General Agrippa really was a Hellenistic Jew, just like Jesus Christ, the nation has not recognized him as "one of them".

 _ **The Caesars:**_

 _Augustus_ \- So, of all the emperors who ruled the empire, Augustus Caesar was probably the one leader who was most in line with Biblical morality. He was a remarkable departure from Julius in the decrees he passed regarding marriage and adultery; although many of the marriages Augustus arranged (and rearranged) were primarily made for political reasons, this caused a lot of hardship for those directly involved. He also passed a lot of decrees regarding the treatment of slaves and Augustus was the main reason that only officials of the empire, operating in an official capacity, were allowed to execute criminals. ("officially" 28 B.C to 14 A.D.)

7 B.C. Most probable date Jesus Christ was born.

5 B.C. Flee to Egypt.

3 B.C. to 1 A.D. - Return from Egypt probably in this time frame.

5 A.D. Jesus in the temple (12 years old)

Now it's well known that Augustus Caesar and General Agrippa were very close friends and that Caesar had a great deal of respect for General Agrippa. Caesar though, not coming from a family environment where Biblical morality was followed, he had to have obtained his convictions from outside his originating circles of Roman society. So thus I think General Agrippa very well may have been the connecting factor in setting up a stable political system, in preparation for the birth of the Messiah.

 _Tiberius_ \- Augustus's successor Tiberius, followed much in Augustus's methods of administrating the empire and was considered by history to be fair and practical in the decisions he made, although he was severely disliked by the people in his day. Tiberius was a brooding moody person of a disagreeable disposition. To his credit though, he didn't engage in any unnecessary wars and via certain practices and a tight administration, he increased the federal treasury considerably. Although Tiberius had suffered early on from depression caused by family upheaval, and had slid off "level moral foundations" for some years; he did seem to "bounce back" in some rather practical ways, as he was an effective and efficient (albite still unpopular) ruler during his reign. (14 A.D. to 37 A.D.)

30 A.D. John begins preaching / Jesus begins public ministry

33 A.D. Crucifixion, Resurrection, Ascension, Pentecost

 _Caligula_ \- (On the other hand) was likened to the "evil Sith lord takes over the empire after order 66, hunts down and kills all the noble Jedi knights of the order of the old republic". Caligula was certifiably insane and absolutely morally bankrupt. He had an insatiable deviant sex addiction in which his nephew (future emperor Nero) through out the majority of his childhood, was one of the victims of Caligula's repeated abuse. (37 A.D. to 41 A.D.)

Paul's missionary trips

Church grows

 _Claudius_ \- (Caligula's brother) early on, was a fair handed and studious ruler, although not particularly fond of the public duties of the emperorship. He was rather ornery when he had to deal with other people and much preferred the solitary administrative type duties of running the empire. He was a great lover of history and did a lot of studying before he ever became emperor. He also had a certain fondness and respect for the military, and although he was not a spectacular general, he prospered at what he was good at; setting up the administration of and running colonies. As his reign wore on though, Claudius became increasingly unpredictable in his exercise of authority, eventually becoming despotic and losing not only objectivity, but sight of growing dangers in his immediate environment. Claudius is believed to have been poisoned by his wife, in favor of her son Nero. (41 A.D. to 54 A.D.)

Civil unrest begins in Judea. (about 44 A.D.) The book of Acts talks about this.

(About 61 A.D.) Paul is arrested by the Romans and removed from Jerusalem.

 _Nero -_ In our day, Nero's reputation for persecuting Christians proceeds him. He's also said to have killed several family members, including his own mother and two wives. (Two of these executions are verifiable by historical record.) Accounts from his day though show that Nero had quite a bit of support and mixed popularity, as he was a big supporter of the arts and not particularly impressed with the religious practice of worshiping the emperor. Although he's been accused of burning down Rome, historically that does not appear to be the case. Also Nero did not throw Christians into the Colosseum to be eaten by lions, as the Colosseum was not built until 72 A.D. 4 years after Nero's death. It does seem that Nero's major "Faux Pas" as an emperor was that, especially toward the end of his reign, he spent a lot of money, levied a lot of taxes and confiscated a lot of property from a lot of wealthy individuals. To his credit though, he did use these funds mostly for public works projects. So since the common people were benefiting, they were not particularly displeased in the beginning. In the end though, nobody was safe and nothing was sacred, as he began confiscating property from temples too. This of course did not make the adherents to these religions very happy; but at least Nero was an "equal opportunity" thief. His military campaigns were also not particularly successful, and these things appear to be what lost him "brownie points" with the senate. Nero committed suicide in 68 A.D. (54 A.D. to 68 A.D.)

1st Roman Jewish war begins in 66 A.D.

For the next year things were pretty chaotic, as there were 4 emperors in one year.

The next 3 emperors, who reigned from 69 to 96 A.D. were all of the same military family, which for the most part was a little more functional than the other Roman emperor's families to date. Vespasian and his two sons Titus and Domitian were pretty efficient and ran the empire more with military proficiency than anything (or anyone) else. The nearly 30 year reign of the three of them combined, although they were not void of internal conflict within the empire, things still ran smoothly. These three men were appreciated for their ability to get the job done, despite that Titus and Domitian didn't particularly like each other and didn't always get along real well.

70 A.D. Temple destroyed.

These emperors of Rome concluded the era of the Herodian dynasty; a total of 13 emperors.

 _ **Herod the Great:**_

Now King Herod the Great and General Agrippa did know each other and are said to have been friends before General Agrippa died in 12 B.C. Matter of fact King Herod was allegedly so fond of this general that he named his grandsons after him; and this is how the Agrippa name got into the Herodian family line. Besides this, there were other things that General Agrippa did that King Herod "copied". I do suspect that knowing the type of person Herod was though, his "fondness" for the general may have been more of a political maneuver, than a meeting of souls operating in the same moral plane.

Consequently Augustus's elevation to "top elected official" of the Roman Empire, also elevated the status of Herod within the empire, as to the one and only single act of humility Herod had ever performed in his life; probably saved his neck. Herod the Great first sided with Mark Antony and Cleopatra, but once it became clear that his cards would be better cast with Octavian Caesar, he switched sides. (Battle of Actium - 31 B.C.) Herod went to Rome, requested a meeting with Augustus (possibly orchestrated by General Agrippa) and frankly told the emperor of his treason. He than vowed allegiance to Augustus and requested some Roman legions to put down the rebellion that was troubling him in Judea. Caesar seeing this as an advantageous securement of the expansion of his empire: granted it.

Now to throw another factor in here; Marc Antony also plays an interesting roll in all of this. King Herod was originally allied with him against Octavius and remained his ally until Antony died in 30 B.C. Antony though was the person who recommended Herod to the Roman senate to be the king in Judea. (37 B.C.) Now to honor Antony, one of the building projects Herod constructed was the Antonia Fortress. This structure was a military fortification that was connected to the temple and was named as such in about 35 B.C.

Now to my knowledge the name of the Antonia Fortress never changed even after Antony died and Augustus was declared emperor. This is possibly because the Romans may have looked at this conflict as a civil war and were unwilling to fan the flames of descent following the battle of Actium. The Antonia Fortress itself, of course caused issues for Pharisaic minded Jews and much like the Confederate monuments in the southern states of the U.S. today; both become _(became)_ lightning rods for people following different sets of _(neither entirely grounded in reality)_ narratives. The objections the Pharisees had to Roman standards and military banners displayed in the Antonia fortress, which (by the way was a military installation) did puzzle Pilate. Needless to say, Pilate had removed some of them with the intent to appease the people.

Also though, it's known that Herod the Great had invited General Agrippa to Judea on at least two occasions following the quelling of the rebellion Herod had faced after Antony's defeat. One of the outcomes of these visits is that Herod agreed to erect accommodations that served as a quasi retirement location for Roman soldiers who'd served in both campaigns (defeating Antony as well as this Judean rebellion). This happened / began to be implemented, probably somewhere between 25 and 20 B.C.? To my knowledge, history does not record exactly when, other than these meetings had taken place, as well as what was agreed upon as a result. So thus being one reason for the build up of the presence of Roman soldiers in the Judean province. Thus playing into God's salvation plan in establishing a stable political environment which the Messiah would be born into.

More "interesting coincidences"?

Another piece of this puzzle that probably has some significance (although I'm not sure I have actually found the correlation) is Herod the Great's relationship to the high priesthood of his day.

Herod was appointed governor of Coele-Syria and Samaria in 46 B.C.; but didn't officially become king until 37 B.C. Herod's ushering in as king, also brought about a change in the priesthood of Jewish religious life. The first year of Herod's reign saw the last year of the Hasmonean dynasty of priests being the rulers of Jewish religious life. Although there were priests in the Hasmonean line, who were priests during the Herodian reign; the position came with a political price and did not follow the line of succession (Arron's descendants) as was outlined in Exodus. This priesthood / political marriage intertwining has another "interesting coincidence" that emerges some 1941 years later in 1904 A.D.

* * *

 _Next chapter will be dealing with an approximate 120 year time span in modern history as it relates to Zionism and the nation state of Israel._


	18. Modern Comparisons (120 years)

**Modern Comparisons**

 _This chapter deals with an (approximate)120 year time span in modern history._

* * *

 _ **Interesting facts / pieces of modern secular history:**_

Before I get into this modern time table comparison, one revelation came upon me as I was researching this. One of the things history tells us about Herod the Great, is that he wanted so badly to believe / prove that he was the Messiah. Likewise, if we follow the trek of Rabbinic Judaism, we see an anticipation of the appearance of the Messiah also based on political events.

Now human beings in general are always trying to make up, or fit events they may actually enact themselves at a certain point, into a timetable. False religions of every kind are filled with numeric meanings, dates and charts and all sorts of configurations in an attempt to make some sort of sense out of what's happening in the world. Once in a while they may hit on something that correlates with Scripture, but more often than not, their predictions are wrong. All systems of belief do this and Rabbinic Judaism is no different. I have seen countless incidences where rabbis have said: "Well if we do this…. the messiah will appear; (or maybe the messiah will appear)? We know we have to do …(X)… because the Talmud says …(Y)… will happen before the messiah appears." (More on this in a future chapter when I talk about World War II.)

So here is where I call out my own speculation for what it is; speculation. Now I have found some interesting coincidences in making some comparisons; but I honestly have no idea if any of this means anything at all. Some of it is probably a good guess based on basic understanding of the nature of salvation and why God does and allows to happen the things that He does. As far as correlating time tables though; anything in this chapter may have relevance, or it may not. I don't know, but here it is.

 _ **Modern Time Table?**_

Now _**if**_ 2033 A.D. does actually turn out to play a major prophetic position in the unfolding of God's timetable, there are some "interesting coincidences" that correlate here too.

 _Quick side note:_

 _Here's one interesting piece of random information I came across while researching something else; (yet unknown in it's actual relevance to the unfolding of God's time table)? Interesting none the less though. Current prediction is that the United States' Social Security trust fund will run out of assets by 2034 A.D. Now, is this true? Does this mean anything? Will we even still be here? I have no idea! (I'll talk a little bit more about economics and crashes later.)_

 _ **130 years**_

37 B.C. Herod's reign starts - 1903 A.D. Britain's proposal for Jewish state.

* * *

Herod changes priesthood -1904 Hertzl asks Pope to recognize Zionism.

* * *

 _ **120 years**_

27 B.C. Roman Empire founded -1914 1st Jewish / Arab conflict

* * *

7 B.C. Jesus Christ is born -1933 Adolf Hitler / Transfer Agreement

* * *

-1934 3rd Reich encourages Jews to move to Palestine.

* * *

5 B.C. Flight into Egypt -1936 Arabs revolt against Zionists

* * *

3 B.C.

(time frame of return from Egypt) -1939 WWII begins

* * *

1 A.D. -1941 U.S. enters WWII

* * *

5 A.D. Jesus in temple (12 y.o.) -1945 WWII ends

* * *

-1948 Israel created / 1st Arab Israeli war

* * *

-1967 6 Days War

* * *

30 A.D. John in the wilderness

* * *

33 A.D. Crucifixion -1973 Yom Kipper War

Paul's missionary trips

* * *

44 A.D. Civil unrest begins

* * *

-1991 Desert Storm

* * *

-2001 9/11 "Greater Israel Project" ? (Commencement of ongoing war)

* * *

61 A.D. Paul removed from Jerusalem

66 A.D. 1 Roman Jewish war

* * *

70 A.D. Temple destroyed 2010 -Peace talks with Palestinians halt

* * *

93 A.D. Last Herod dies -2033 ?

 _ **120 years of Noah's building the ark?**_

Next interesting tidbit of history, (if 2033 means anything)? 120 years prior to 2033 brings us to 1913. What of significance happened in 1913? This was just prior to the outbreak of WWI.

Well in Palestine, the first settlements of Zionists began to come into the land and 1913 marked the first year where outbreaks of violence caused loss of life. In a vineyard in Rehavot (near modern day Tel Aviv) a brawl erupted over the theft of some grapes. One Jew and one Arab were dead in the end. These seeds of conflict (also title of a PBS film) were set into motion, of what would become an ever mounting death toll on both sides.

Now backing up another 10 years to 1903 (same time span 130 years of the start of the Herodian dynasty : 36 B.C.) we have Theodor Hertzl who is the first political founder of the Zionist movement is presented with Britain's plan for a Zionist state. (Uganda / Kenya which is a British territory is offered.) The 6th Zionist congress rejects this proposal. Then in 1904, Hertzl comes to Pope Pius XXII seeking recognition for Zionism from the Roman Catholic Church. Remember Herod the Great and the Jewish priesthood at the start of his reign? Coincidence; or is this relevant to the end?

Moving forward from 1903 we come to 1933. This obviously was the year Adolf Hitler became chancellor of Germany; (which coincides in the 1st century timeline with the year Jesus was born). Now, moving forward 30 years from Hertzl's meeting with the Pope, we come to 1934. Interestingly, this was the year an internal memo from the SS circulated through the leadership of the Third Reich in Germany, stating the best way to facilitate the exit of Jews from Europe was to encourage people to move to Palestine. The Transfer Agreement (Haavara Agreement in Israeli political speak) had been passed into law in Germany in 1933, shortly after Hitler came to power.

 _The National Socialist Party was actually in favor of the Zionist movement and had received donations from several well known Zionist leaders both in the U.S and greater Europe. Matter of fact the term "Nazi" was coined by a Jewish leader from combining "_ _ **Na**_ _tional" (Socialist) with "_ _ **Zi**_ _onist". It first was a kind of slang term that later became a derogatory one; sort of like "Commie" in the 50's and "Fake News" today._

So two years pass and we come to 1936. Did anything of significance happen in the history of Zionism that would have a similar correlation to Joseph and Mary taking Jesus to Egypt? Well in 1936, began the Arab revolt, in which the Arab factions in Palestine combined leadership to form The Arab High Command. This organization represented Arab interests to the international community until 1948. What if any correlation would this have to Jesus going into Egypt; other than the general notion of mounting conflict at the appearance of the King? I don't know.

Jesus would have returned from Egypt some 3 to 5 years later, although neither the Scripture nor secular history give us a specific date. When we look at 20th century history though, we do see WWII started in 1939 and the United States entered the war in 1941. (Same time correlation 3 to 5 years after entering / upon return from Egypt. Does this really mean anything? I don't know, but it is another "interesting coincidence".) What other "interesting coincidence" does WWII hold with Jesus retuning to Judea and living in Nazareth? I'm not sure of the true relevance here; but WWII did mark a major turn of events in the history of Zionism, as it's end brought about the state of Israel. World War II ended in 1945, which would correlate to Jesus being 12 years old.

Now if the start of WWII has any correlation with Jesus leaving Egypt? (2 B.C.?) And we know the year WWII ended correlates with the 1st century time table of when Jesus would have been in the temple. What about 1948 though? We know that was an important year in the history of Zionism (the resolution for Israel (but also a Palestinian state) was passed in the U.N.) and although we have no recorded 1st century events to compare it to; it is 85 years between 1948 and 2033. So what does that mean?

As far as I know….. nothing. (Got ya!) There's only one place the number 85 is used in the Bible and that's the 85th Psalm. Ironically though, that Psalm is about the people returning to the land and those who are obedient will have rest. Smack dab in the middle of this passage though is a warning; "let them not return again to folly".

 _ **Themes?**_

So if we compare the over arching theme(s) present in these two historical eras we do see some parallels. Herod the Great, (the alleged Jewish king) tries to wipe out the Messiah. Compare this to the rise of the National Socialists in Germany and their connection to the Zionist movement. We see it's actually the leaders of Zionism (like Herod) trying to wipe out members of their own nation; if only so on the pages of propaganda newspapers. (In a future chapter I will cover what actually did not happen in German concentration camps during the war.)

Jesus returns to the land, diverted to Nazareth by the presence of one of Herod's sons who's ruling over the area of Bethlehem. (This Herod is later replaced / area ruled over by Pontius Pilot.) A couple of years later Jesus goes to the temple (5 A.D.) and this is the first time the leaders of the nation get any "religious confrontation" of what they will be up against in another 25 years (30 A.D.). Ironically, this was actually the start of a war they didn't know was upon them at the time.

Compare this to the 20th century, 1939 erupted a literal global conflict; the biggest global conflict planet Earth has ever seen. Kingdom will rise against kingdom. I.E. the kingdom of Satan against the Kingdom of God in the first century and multiple political kingdoms into a devastating global conflict in the 20th century; all fitting interestingly into the same time frame?

Then at the conclusion of this 20th century conflict is a 12 year old, who in one full swoop has left off a "war" that had commenced some 1940 years earlier. Now I don't know if this has anything to do with the Scripture verse in Revelation that talks about Satan being loosed at the end of time to "deceive the nations once again"? As was looked at earlier in this study; that passage itself seems to indicate that the loosing of Satan is for a very short duration. Now is the "loosing" of Satan a gradual process until in the full wrath of his "freedom" he brings instantaneous destruction? I don't know, but I would call this an interesting correlation (rather than "coincidence") this time around.

30 AD brings John the Baptist out of the wilderness preaching by the banks of the Jordan for the people to repent. "Make strait the paths." How does this compare to the 20th century? If we jump ahead 25 years from the formation of Israel in 1948, we come to 1973. What happened in 1973 relevant to Zionism? A lot of things happened. A lot of scary things happened. Whereas in 30 A.D. the nation is called to repent, (and by 33 A.D. we see "the nation" didn't) in 1973, "the nation" (Israel) nearly causes the destruction of planet earth with a nuclear war.

Although just like WWII and Jesus in the temple line up as the commencement of one event and the end of another, we see the formation of Israel as it's "day of atonement" (Yom Kipper War) concludes with a correlation to the crucifixion. (33 A.D. as opposed to 30 A.D.) As for any possible correlations one time line may have to the other, this one seems the most significant to me.

Now what does this really mean; (if anything) I have no idea? One "interesting coincidence" I have found though is that there are 60 years from this event to 2033 and there were 60 years from the crucifixion until the last Herod died. Six days of work in the formation of the cosmos and 6 decades of time between when the Messiah had rose from the dead and the end of the time table of the nation. If we expand that to 6000 years back in time from 2033 A.D. we wind up some place in the middle of the life span of Methuselah. Now although I think he'd be an interesting person to talk to, this detail probably has no bearing on the question of this timeline.

 _ **1967 to 1973 :**_

In 1973 a war had broken out between Israel, Egypt and Syria. On the surface, Egypt had gone in and taken the Suez Canal while Syria invaded the Golan Heights. In the end Israel defeated both Egypt and Syria with the help of the U.S. That's the simple narrative. The more we scratch beneath the surface though, we find nothing is that simple.

So here we go, follow me down this rabbit hole (beware - it gets deep):

To understand this, first we have to understand a little bit of history of what went on 6 years prior in 1967, and to understand that, we actually have to go back to the 1950's. Now if we do some digging here, we will find through declassified information recently made public on the web; (some of which was released by order of President Donald Trump) that we will smack up against the "deep state" and the behind-the-scenes workings of the beast(s) system. All these events are verifiable with just a little bit of Internet research.

 _There is currently a phenomenon going around the web called "Q" (and the anons) whereas allegedly someone(s) high up in the Trump administration are posting / explaining and connecting certain events and declassified information to explain to the patriot / nationalists movements in the U.S. and abroad, what's in the works to try and take down the "deep state". The information posted is interesting and a good deal of it points out and attempts to explain the connections between real events, declassified aspects of certain programs and entities like the mainstream media, the pharmaceutical industry and the gun control lobby. For anyone who's familiar with this phenomenon, (or has researched "conspiracy theories") what you're about to read is not going to sound bizarre at all. More on "Q" at the end of this chapter._

 _ **So let's jump into this: France-1954**_

Back at the end of WWII, all European powers, with the exception of France relinquished their colonial empires. Great Britain was bankrupt, Germany was destroyed, the Soviet Union was on life support, the United States and Canada where basically the only two nations in the world who still had an infrastructure and functional economies; and the U.S. was the only nation with a nuclear bomb. The end of the war saw the scramble between the U.S. and the Soviets to scoop up as much German technology and as many scientists as possible. The U.S. got the better share of both, but the Soviet Union was still the next nation to obtain a nuclear bomb; (1949 - albite with help of people in FDR's administration actually). After the Soviets, Great Britain was the next nation to develop the bomb in 1952.

1954 was a very bad year for France. Their control of South East Asia collapsed. They pulled out of Vietnam in 1954 and the war for Algerian independence started that same year. France still had quite a few nations in East Africa and areas of Israel.

Gamal Abdul Nasser was elected president of Egypt in 1956 although in 1952 he'd headed a successful coup that ousted the British backed Egyptian royal family. 1955 drew up an agreement between Egypt, Britain, and the U.S. accompanied by a loan from the World Bank to build a dam over the Nile river at Aswan. Negotiations were put on hold at first to try and iron out a problem Egypt had with Sudan over sharing water and whether or not Sudan would elect to join Egypt? (Sudan was still a quasi British colony.) This was allegedly further complicated by a deal Nasser entered into with Czechoslovakia for weapons (manufactured by the Soviet Union), in juxtaposed to France arming Israel. (Nasser had also recognized communist China.) In the end though Nasser had agreed to all the bank's conditions and was ready to go forth with the U.S. / British deal, although the Soviet's too had put a construction deal of their own on the table.

All this strained the deal with the U.S. in the mind of then Secretary of State John Foster Dulles; but from the vanish-point of President Eisenhower and the World Bank, was not sufficient reason to halt negotiations. No one knows for sure why the U.S. secretary of state suddenly lost his patience with Nasser and withdrew the offer, but in 1956 the U.S. and Britain were suddenly out of the deal. Egypt took control of the Suez canal and told the world, we will charge fees to use this canal so we can build our dam. (The dam eventually was completed with help of the Soviets by 1971.)

Well this "invading the canal" "enraged" Israel, France and Britain, who'd already schemed up a plan to start a war. After this, Israel made a few failed attempts to cause problems for Egypt's administration of the canal; but all the other nations that used it, found no real reason to object to Egypt's managerial skills. Still the military forces of Britain and France were steaming toward Egypt, while Israel launched an attack on Sini.

At that point, Eisenhower blew his stack, threatened Britain and France with withdrawing their loans for rebuilding Europe and than took the issue to the U.N. by emergency resolution. Britain vetoed the resolution, but was countered by Yugoslavia's motion to send the issue to General Assembly. France objected to the U.S. resolution, but was countered by a Soviet resolution, which the French accepted; (never acknowledging that this was the very same resolution the U.S. had offered, just the Soviet's had edited out Eisenhower's anger at Britain and France).

The U.S. attempted to sooth over their allies hurt feelings, along with their slow and begrudging withdrawal; when the Soviets "saved the day" by threatening Britain, France and Israel with a nuclear attack, saying they were going to blow Israel off the face of the earth because it "wasn't really a country anyways".

All the nations involved knew the man who'd made the threat (Nikolai Bulganin) wasn't serious; as they'd previously collected intel that Russia didn't even have long range ICBM's and Bulganin had been working closely with the U.S. over nuclear weapons test ban treaties and putting limits on nuclear stock piles. He'd made the announcement public though, before the parties involved ever received their "written notices"; which had put a real scare on the civilian population, effectively putting and end to any want of public support for a war on the parts of the British or French people.

After things settled down, Israel continued to object to Egypt's control of the Suez and Egypt's response was: "Take it before the international court." Israel never filed any legal action against Egypt over the nationalization of the canal. They had filed a complaint in 1950 over Egyptian restrictions of ships passing through the canal headed to Israel, which was a result of shifts in control of the canal that were a result of the 1948 Arab-Israeli war.

 _ **1948:**_

When the U.N. passed the resolution to form Israel, it was also to include a Palestinian state. But since the U.N. actually does not possess the authority to create nations, this resolution was simply a recommendation, not a law enacted. The stipulation did say though that _**if**_ an Israeli state was to be created, _**than**_ a Palestinian state was also to be _**mandated**_ in that agreement. Yet that aspect of the resolution has never been honored by Israel. This started a war in 1948, when the Arab states stepped in to back the Palestinians. Egypt had instituted restrictions of ships entering the canal headed to Israel on suspicion of weapons smuggling.

When Israel complained to the U.N. in 1950 over Egypt's interference with Israel's use of the canal, the U.N. declared that because the original treaty for the Suez had now expired, this was not their jurisdiction (nor Britain's jurisdiction). _(Although Egypt had gained independence from Britain in 1922 and the Suez was technically in Egypt, it was still being operated as an international body of water by a private French company.)_ Egypt's independence effectively ended 1888's stipulations drawn up in the Convention of Constantinople; which left control of the canal open to "whomever" after the British left. So after 1956, since the Suez Canal was technically in Egypt, it seemed logical for the U.N. to rule that it belongs to the Egyptians; (besides the fact that it was constructed using Egyptian labor and cement).

 _ **How Israel got Nukes:**_

So now Israel was mad at France for "losing" the 1956 war; (and France was mad at everyone else). So France, who had the technology to build themselves a nuclear bomb, but hadn't yet, "went rogue" on the rest of the world and began selling this technology to other nations. They sold it to Israel, India, and Pakistan; who intern sold it to Iran and allegedly North Korea. Israel launched it's nuclear program in 1956 with the help of French scientists, but continued to obtain more and better technology primarily from spying on the U.S.

So this brings us to 1967 and the 6 Days War.

Let's go further down the rabbit hole. Here's where it gets even weirder. The key to really being able to figure out what exactly was going on, would be most easily answered if we knew exactly why a particular American ship (The USS Liberty) was attacked by Israel.

This war "opens up" with the Soviets getting wind of plans in the works for a staged war in the middle east. Remember Nikolai Bulganin? He was the equivalent of the vice-president for the Soviet Union in 56. He was the major arms treaty negotiator for the Soviets under Khrushchev. He negotiated many treaties and was highly respected as a levelheaded and fair man by the U.S. One of the limits he negotiated had to do with the use of outer space. Space could be used for peaceful exploration, satellites, GPS satellites, and even reconnaissance spying over a certain altitude; but no weapons were to be positioned in space. (Nations to date have upheld this treaty.)

Well apparently, either through spying or high altitude observation, the Soviets learned of Israel's nuclear program. They warned Egypt and Syria about it, as well as a plan they'd gotten wind of that Israel was going to start a war.

 _ **USS Liberty is the Key:**_

Now here is where the rabbit hole gets deep and has to do with the USS Liberty ship. Liberty was a spy ship. It had very advanced "ears" and decoding capacity. The 6 Days War had already started and the Liberty was in international waters, off the coast of Egypt, about 14 miles from Israel. Very clear day, mid afternoon, after being observed for several hours that morning, Israeli planes and a couple of torpedo boats came out and tried to sink the Liberty. They knew it was an American ship. There's record of Israeli pilots talking to their command posts, acknowledging that they know it's an American ship, some pilots questioning (and subsequently refusing) to follow their orders to sink this ship. The only reason they didn't "end up" sinking it in the end, was because a Soviet spy ship came on the scene and the Israelis knew they were being watched.

So, other than the Soviet spy ship, no other portion of the fleet knew this was going on, until one sailor from the Liberty duct taped some antennas together (during the first attack) and got an SOS out to the American 6th Fleet.

The 6th Fleet's, USS Saratoga was the first to receive the signal and launches jet fighters. (Jet fighters armed with nuclear weapons mind you. Jet fighters assumed by personnel of the 6th Fleet to be on their way to defend the USS Liberty. Decades later, declassified intelligence would tell us these fighters were actually being sent to drop their nukes on Ciro.) Within minutes they are contacted by U.S. Secretary of Defense, who orders the planes to return. The rear admiral who relays the message, tells the Saratoga to relaunch in 90 minutes. (Relaunch a rescue mission.) The Liberty is still under attack when the commander of the 6th Fleet sends the USS America and Saratoga, telling them to send planes to defend the Liberty. 6th Fleet commander radios that help is on the way, but the Liberty doesn't receive it.

Signet Command Center contacts the National Military Command Center in D.C. Liberty is hit with a 3rd round attacks. Commander of 6th Fleet launches 12 aircraft. By this time D.C. is on the phone ordering another recall. After arguing between the top brass of the 6th Fleet and the Secretary of Defense, President Johnson gets on the line and says he doesn't care if the ship sinks, he will not embarrass his allies.

?

The Liberty continues to transmit a distress signal, but there is no response. About 5 hours later, a Soviet guided missile destroyer sends a flashing light message in English "Do you need help".

The Liberty responds "No thank you."

The Soviet ship replies "I will stand by in case you need me."

The Soviet ship waits until the Navy destroyers Davis and Massey arrive to retrieve the Liberty's crew. The Liberty is towed back to port in Malta.

34 are dead, 174 are wounded, out of 294 sailors on that ship.

To date, there is no explanation given as to why the USS Liberty was attacked. The Israelis claim it was an accident. Any investigation / information about the attack coming from the top down is still classified.

 _ **So the questions begin?**_

What was the real purpose of the 6 Days War? Obviously from the declassified information we do have, we can put enough together to at least fill in some of the gaps. We know this was a planned war. We know the Soviets knew about it. We also know that a couple of years prior (1962) was the Cuban Missile Crisis. _(Irrelevant side note here; my dad was in the Cuban Missile Crisis.)_ One of the things that came out of the Cuban Missile Crisis was that a direct telephone link was established between the White House and the Kremlin that's still in existence today. (1963) It's dubbed "the red phone"; although it's not red and to my knowledge, it isn't actually a direct phone link.

So, my speculation is that as soon as the Soviet spy ship shows up with the first wave of attacks on the USS Liberty, the captain radios to the Kremlin and tells them what's going on in this schemed war. (The Israelis are going to sink an American ship, blame it on the Egyptians, which gives America "justification" to bomb Ciro …. (with nuclear weapons?) Eh… Yeah!) At that point the Kremlin probably contacted D.C. and said "We know what's going on." and probably "If you nuke Egypt, we're gonna nuke you."

 _It was well understood by 1957 with the launch of Sputnik; that since the Soviets had rockets that were capable of launching satellites into space, they certainly had ICBM's that could hit the U.S._

 _ **So, advancing back to 1973 comes The Yom Kipper War**_ _ **(or rather - the Six Days War - round two)**_

Documents released by the Russians in 2012, explained that (again) this war was a result of Egypt, the US and Israel conspiring together to ultimately get rid of the Syrian army. (Although Israel drove the Syrian army back, they were not able to destroy it.)

This information was released in a memo compiled for the Soviet politburo by their ambassador to Egypt. How the Russian ambassador got wind of this so far in advance, is not explained in the memo, but apparently this memo (recently released) was not fake. We know this because historically speaking "in real time", the Soviet leadership did take measures to ensure the safety of their own citizens, as they evacuated their embassies before the Egyptians ever made their move. About a week before the war broke out, the Soviet ambassador to Egypt, along with the Soviet ambassador to the U.S. met with President Nixon in the White House and in no shorter terms warned him that they could "all wake up one day and find that there is a real conflagration". (A conflagration is an extensive fire that destroys a whole lot of land.)

The Soviets were obviously aware of this conspiracy against Syria (since there'd been a prior war of the same set up) and although they were animate in staying out of a war with the U.S., I don't know if they were looking to force the U.S.'s hand, or they were looking to mess with Israel a little bit? (Or maybe both.) The plan was that Egypt would invade the Suez Canal, which would "inspire" Syria to invade the Golan Heights. Egypt and Israel would sit in a stalemate, until the U.S. entered the war, than Egypt would pull back and blame their lack of success on inferior Soviet weapons, while the US and Israel would mop up Syria. This would allow Egypt's ruler to "save face" from the defeat in a prior war, (6 day war) and blame it on the Soviets. The U.S. would reestablish a stronger foothold in the middle east, and Israel was to get advanced weapons from the U.S.

 _So what actually happened?_

Well the Soviets decided to equip the Egyptian army with the best weapons they had, wherewith the Egyptians proceeded to clobber the Israelis. When the Israelis retreated, the Egyptians just waited, saying to Syria that they were not going to go wandering all over Sini looking for Israelis when they'd eventually come back.

So the Israelis turned their attention toward Syria, which didn't exactly work out as planned either, since the more advance weapons they had arranged to obtain from the U.S. failed to be effective in the dry and dusty climate. _(AK-47's on the other hand are remarkably simple, but well designed weapons and seem to love sand storms. American soldiers in Desert Storm were amazed that the Iraqi machine guns still fired, considering how old they were and the abrasive sandy environment. Our M-16's jammed all the time. AK-47's, (much craved by black market arms dealers) were actually designed to take a wide variety of ammunition and will fire under just about any circumstances.)_ (The U.S. had even more advanced weapons that they were unwilling to relinquish to Israel at that moment.) Then Israel pulled "the nuke card" and the U.S. started Operation Nickel Grass.

Operation Nickel Grass was much like the Berlin Airlift of 1948/49, except it didn't last as long. First thought was to use Israeli passenger planes, but they were too small. Next the State Department approached U.S. commercial airline companies, all of which refused, for fear of the possible economic consequences to them post war from the Arab states. So finally Nixon told the U.S. Air Force, "send anything that flies".

Word had gotten out though that the real reason for Nickel Grass was to try and head off another nuclear war. Again, it was probably a similar scenario to the Six Days War whereas not only Israel had threatened to use nukes, but that the Kremlin and D.C. were probably in communication with each other posing the same threats. All of that is played down in the mainstream narrative today, but I'm sure it is just one of many covert instances where the world was on the verge of nuclear destruction.

So Israel got arms restocks from Nickel Grass (and than some), and the U.S. and Soviets seemed to agree that stocking the nations of the Middle-East with "conventional" weapons was preferable to the stress of constant escalation to threat of nuclear war. As we'll see though from future conflicts (both "local" and "global") that found their battlefields in the Middle-East, all sides are "dirty" in these conflicts.

 _ **Global Economic Impact:**_

Obviously though, the "Yom Kipper War" was not without economic consequences to the U.S. and (to a lesser degree) the rest of the world, as it's "end" brought on the beginning of the OPEC oil embargo. Now this war wasn't the only factor in this, but it was the major one. Pressure was put on Israel to withdraw from Sini and the Golan Heights so that the Arab nations would lift the embargo; which they did in 1974.

Rolled up in all this tangled ball of string, the oil embargo caused the stock market to crash too, which was the first major stock market crash event since the depression. In 1971, the U.S. went off the gold standard, and the rest of the industrialized world also followed; "floating" their currencies and making the value of such dependent on the strength of their economies.

This is why the stock market today does wild things with the occurrence of global events, like hurricanes, earthquakes or political happenings like national elections. This is also why nations like Russia, China and the U.S. get into "economy wars" with each other. Certain nations and geographic areas have the "lion's share" of natural resources like oil, coal and natural gas, (The Middle-East, Russia, Canada) while others have manufacturing capacity (China, Japan, the U.S.) and still others are leaders in technology (Japan, South Korea, the U.S.). Of course the three biggest military spenders are the U.S., China and Russia; (4th comes Saudi Arabia) and all of this ties together in this global / beast / cabal system.

 _ **Subsequent Conflicts:**_

The next major war to break out between Israel and any of it's neighbors was the 1982 Lebanese war between Israel and the PLO (backed by Iran's Hezbollah). All subsequent conflicts (this one included) directly involving Israel have remained in this category ("local" conflict) and have not involved other nations as directly engaged in nationally declared wars.

As the Soviet Union was beginning to come unraveled by this decade, the next global conflict we see in the Middle-East is Desert Storm in 1991. And as mentioned in a previous paragraph, all sides are still "dirty" in these conflicts. Although Desert Storm did not see official "nuclear bombs", it did see the use of depleted uranium, as well as chemical and biological warfare. Of course the mainstream narrative denies any of this, but evidence can easily be found by simply looking up "Khamisiyah weapons dump" on YouTube.

Chemical and biological weapons were outlawed at the end of WWI. Of which the U.S., Britain, France, and Russia have all signed this treaty. When American marines went into the Khamisiyah munitions complex in Iraq though, they found chemical and biological weapons. (There is footage of this on YouTube.) So, guess where the Iraqis got them from? Primarily the U.S., but also Britain and France. (To my knowledge they found no Soviet chemical / biological weapons in that bunker complex.) Now why did the U.S. sell Saddam Hussain chemical and biological weapons? That goes back to the Iran / Iraq war; (1980-1987) but that is a whole other rabbit hole to save for another discussion.

So obviously bombing this munitions dump caused the release of these agents; of which did cause isolated pockets of mass death of (mostly Bedouins) in the Iraqi desert. American forces had come across areas and a village or two where everything was dead, including the insects.

I remember people talking about this back during the war. The transient military units and civilian contractors I worked with were suspicious that the stuff we were cleaning was "hot". One fellow did manage to scrounge up some chemical weapons kits and a gager counter. And yes, the kits did detect low level presence of agents; but we were all "reassured" that our detection equipment was faulty. "Ironically" though, it only started to "malfunction" after the air war commenced. We were told it was "the sand", yet 6 months of sitting out in the Saudi Arabian desert during Desert Shield and not one peep out of those chemical weapons detectors! Ehhh….. so they "malfunctioned"… all through the war? Yeah! (I got a munitions dump to sell you in Iraq!) It took 25 years before I was "service connected" for Gulf War Syndrome. I know I digress here and my war stories are probably better saved for another discussion; so back to the study.

The next major global conflict the Middle-East saw, came on the heals of 9/11 in which the governments of Iraq and Afghanistan were taken out. Next came Libya with "shake ups" in Egypt and most recently Saudi Arabia. Now of course most everyone knows there is a civil war going on in Syria. Yet "rumors" coming from a certain retired general Wesley Clark, has stated that the intent was to take out not just Iraq, Libya and Syria, but also Sudan, Somalia, Lebanon and Iran. According to the general, this was a "five year plan" of the deep state.

 _ **More Themes?**_

It's getting pretty long, so let's wrap this chapter up. Now, the Yom Kipper War and 2033? In Hebrew, Yom Kipper means "the day of atonement". Back in the 1st century, Christ was crucified in 33 AD and 60 years later was the end of the Herodian dynasty. Just like the 1st century, it's 60 years between 1973 and 2033. Is this just another "interesting coincidence" or does it actually mean something? I don't know.

" _ **Q"**_

Lastly here, I promised to talk a little bit about "Q-anon". And given the very recent missile strikes in Syria; which had/have a lot of people panicking about the imminent start of World War III, I think it's a good time to bring this up.

Now I heard about "Q" from Infowars, which is one alternative to the mainstream media; (CNN, MSNBC, Washington Post etc.) "Q" is mentioned on Infowars from time to time, but I don't really watch Infowars much, because one of their drives me crazy when ever he has a guest on (he's constantly interrupting). I will watch some of the other hosts on that news outlet, and I'll also watch Fox News; but some of my other news sources are YouTube streamers.

So, I've been following "Q" since about Christmas time and I wasn't sure what to make of it at first, but at this point I do believe who ever "Q" is; (which is said to be a group of people) they are connected to high levels in the Trump administration and military intelligence. "Q" comes by the "chan" boards (4chan / 8chan, qanon dot pub) and drops "crumbs". This information is usually in the form of questions, statements, memes, pictures and things for people to research. The "anons" (Anonymous) who do the research, some of them are very good at it and "Q" will respond to them and tell them if they are "on track" or not.

Now the thing I find most compelling about "Q" is their uncanny ability to "predict" things that are coming. They left "crumbs" about the Syria missile attack a week before it happened. They left crumbs about the Florida school shooting, the North Korea nuclear debacle, and various events like governmental officials and company CEO's stepping down. They've talked about Facebook, the mainstream media, Obama, Clinton, Podesta, Epstine, Weiner and his laptop, Pizzagate, Pedogate, human trafficking, sealed inditements, building the wall, China, trade deals, stuff going on in Britain, Germany, Russia, North Korea. There's many things.

"Q" began dropping crumbs back in late October 2017. It appears to be an alternate means of communicating with the masses outside of the media. The mainstream media has reported on "Q" and at this point there are several million people across the globe who are reading / following "Q" drops.

 _ **Current Events:**_

Now here is where I think we can gain some insight into world events and how and why they are unfolding the way they are right now. There are "good actors" and "bad actors" working the system all the way around, on all levels of government and economics around the world. "Q" talks a lot about this and here is where I think it's important to talk a bit about Russia.

Now one thing I think becomes clear in this chapter is the interesting hand Russia has played in world politics. There are good and bad "actors" in Russia, just as there are good and bad "actors" in America, Britain, Germany, China, Israel etc. This reigns just as true today as it did 50 or so years ago. Personally, I'm not afraid of Russia. I don't think Russia or it's president are the bad guys. Putin has gone on record many times saying he will do anything in his power to bring down the deep state and the global cabal. Just as Trump talks about "drain the swamp", Putin and Xi in China have had their own swamp monsters to slay. Being the types of governments that they are though, these leaders have not been quite as "diplomatic" about slaying those dragons as _(maybe)_ much of the U.S. public would be willing to tolerate in this country.

Yet I honestly believe it's "coming" for many of America's swamp monsters too. According to what I "get wind of" in these alternate media circles, there were found some really nasty, ugly things on Weiner's laptop that are probably not going to "all out" hit the mainstream media because they are so disgusting, sick and evil. (Think pedophile / satanic / "blood libel chapter" type disgusting, sick and evil.) It is said these photos and videos have been leaked to the "dark web" and are so twisted they made veteran NYPD detectives cry. A few of the more "vague" ones showing surveillance stills of people eating in a dining room have made their way onto the regular web. That's all I'm going to say about it, because it really is a hard "red pill" for the "normies" of any nations' public to swallow. Pray for our world, because it's not just America.

Keep in mind this beast / beast(s) system(s) have been around for centuries and methodologies wherewith they seek to obtain their power from Satan have not changed in all those centuries. So yes, you may hear whispers of these things filtering through the media, social media and the Internet. We live in evil times!

So pray, don't panic, God is in control and He'll bring this all down at His appointed time. I really think all that's happening globally right now is God's hand intervening to uphold the system from totally collapsing until the end actually comes. There are reasons in His providence that we didn't nuke ourselves Friday. There are reasons in His providence that the political world is unfolding the way that it is. I'm not "gloriously optimistic" that the entire system is going to get turned around and all the dragons in the swamp are going to get slain. I do know beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt though that God is sovereign and His Holy Spirit is on the move to "save His people from their sin".

* * *

 _Next chapter (to round out the history of all this) will be about World War II._


	19. Zionism 4 - WWI & WWII

This is basically a place marker folks.

Chapter coming soon. (As soon as I get it done.)


	20. Danile 8 - Abomination of Desolation

**Daniel 8**

9 And out of one of them came forth a little horn, which waxed exceeding great, toward the south, and toward the east, and toward the pleasant land.

10 And it waxed great, even to the host of heaven; and it cast down some of the host and of the stars to the ground, and stamped upon them.

11 Yea, he magnified himself even to the prince of the host, and by him the daily sacrifice was taken away, and the place of the sanctuary was cast down.

12 And an host was given him against the daily sacrifice by reason of transgression, and it cast down the truth to the ground; and it practiced, and prospered.

13 Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake, How long shall be the vision concerning the daily sacrifice, and the transgression of desolation, to give both the sanctuary and the host to be trodden under foot?

14 And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be cleansed.

…

23 And in the latter time of their kingdom, when the transgressors are come to the full, a king of fierce countenance, and understanding dark sentences, shall stand up.

24 And his power shall be mighty, but not by his own power: and he shall destroy wonderfully, and shall prosper, and practice, and shall destroy the mighty and the holy people.

25 And through his policy also he shall cause craft to prosper in his hand; and he shall magnify himself in his heart, and by peace shall destroy many: he shall also stand up against the Prince of princes; but he shall be broken without hand.

26 And the vision of the evening and the morning which was told is true: wherefore shut thou up the vision; for it shall be for many days.

 ** _Herod the Great:_**

These two passages are somewhat parallel to each other. This "king" and "little horn" are Herod the Great. Herod the Great was of Greek ancestry, although he really wanted to believe he was the Messiah (and he wanted other people to believe he was the Messiah too).

He magnifies himself against the "Prince of the Host" and against the "Prince of Princes". the Prince of the Host and the Prince of Princes is Jesus Christ.

By him (King Herod) the "daily sacrifice is taken away" and "the sanctuary is cast down". He also sets up the "transgression of desolation" and is "broken without hand". This transpires in the course of "2300 days" and there are "1290 days" between the sacrifice taken away and the abomination set up.

 _So, what does this all mean?_

Herod became client king of Judea in (elected by the Roman senate) in 40 BC. In 19 BC, he began reconstruction on the temple. He tore the entire reconstructed Solomon's temple down and totally rebuilt it. It was rededicated 10 years later in 9 BC; although we don't know when, we know it was before Passover.

Around about Passover of 9 BC (or 8 BC - depending on which calendar we are talking about - the "sacred" or the "secular"; because these calendars started 6 months apart) comes John the Baptist's father "in the course of Abia". (End of March) July of that year, John is conceived. Six months later, Jesus is conceived. About Passover of 8 BC, John is born. Six months later; (which would have been right after the secular new year of 7 BC) during the feast of tabernacles, Jesus is born. (End of September.)

Joseph, Mary and Jesus stay in Bethlehem for 2 years. The Magi show up probably around the fall of 5 BC. Mary and Joseph take Jesus to Egypt. Herod dies in the spring of 4 BC. They return from Egypt in the summer time of 3 BC.

The time span this takes place in is 2300 days. I.E. - 6 years and 4 months.

Now; the first communication from God in 400 plus years, comes to John the Baptist's father, Zechariah while he's in the temple. (We'll say Passover of 8 BC because we'll use the sacred calendar. This would have been the beginning of the year.) Roughly a year later John is born. 1.5 years from the angel coming to Zechariah, Jesus is born. 2 years after Jesus is born; Herod kills the babies in Bethlehem.

This time span is 1290 days. I.E. - 3.5 years. (Daniel 12)

So what does "take away the daily sacrifice" and "set up the abomination that causes desolate" mean?

First off, we have to define terms. The word "sacrifice" is not in the Hebrew. "Daily" in this passage is best translated "continuous" or "ceaseless". "Take away" means to "magnify". I have no idea why they translated these verses the way that they did.

 ** _11 Yea, he magnified himself even to the Prince of the host, and by him the ceaseless exaltation and the place of the sanctuary was cast down._**

 ** _12 And an host was given him against the ceaseless by reason of transgression, and it_** _(the host)_ ** _cast down the truth to the ground; and it practiced, and prospered._**

 ** _13 Then I heard one saint speaking, and another saint said unto that certain saint which spake. How long shall be the vision concerning the ceaseless and the transgression of desolation, to give both the Holy One and the host (army) to be trodden under foot?_**

Now this hearkens to Jesus making reference to "destroy this temple and I'll raise it on the 3rd day". He wasn't talking about a building, he was talking about his body.

 ** _14 And he said unto me, Unto two thousand and three hundred days; then shall the sanctuary be vindicated._**

Jesus was "vindicated" of Herod the Great, when He returned from Egypt.

Now looking at this translation, it makes a whole lot more contextual sense. "Daily sacrifice" is a poor translation because Herod didn't take away the daily sacrifice, as was related to animal sacrifices; God took that away as soon as the Messiah was conceived; because He was the final sacrifice.

So, moving on from Jesus's birth to Herod trying to kill Him when He was two; this is where the "abomination that makes desolate" was set up. The first announcement that the Messiah was coming, was made by the angel when he appeared to John the Baptist's father. 3.5 years later, the coming of the Magi announces to the nation that the "King of the Jews" is born.

This makes contextual sense and fits into the 1290 day, as well as the 2300 day time table(s); both connected to the same king who "understands dark sayings".


	21. Daniel 11 - 1st Century

**Daniel 11 - First Century**

Darius the Mede of Persia

3 kings arise after him in regards to Persia and the 4th will be wealthy and "stir up all against the realm of Greece".

1\. Cyrus the Great - already ruling

2\. Darius the Great

3\. Xerxes II

4\. Darius III

People assume verse 3 is talking about the 4th Persian king; but the text does not assume that. The text starting in verse 3 does not state that this king is Persian.

 **Short explanation of Herod the Great:**

A might king rules a great area. His kingdom is divided to the "four winds" but not to "his end".

 _The description of the dividing of the kingdom to the four winds is in the "aorist infinitive" usually meaning this is something that happens in time. If used with "perfect' verb tenses, is often translated as "future tense"; but unlike some Greek verbs, is not tied to the time it's being spoken of._

King of the south _(Nageb - a description of a geographic area in southern Judea such as we'd say "mid west" or "north east" in reference to American geography)_ and one prince shall stand against king of the north. _("north" comes from a root word meaning "to hide" or "treasure up")._

 **Short explanation of the Herodian dynasty post temple destruction?**

 ** _In the end years_** king of the south and a prince shall join together. King's daughter will attempt a pact with king of the North. She will fail, but one of her posterity will conquer the north's fortress in a military conquest. Than carry captives into Egypt along with treasures and will 'continue more years' than the king of the north.

 _The "posterity" of this king's daughter is probably Josephus; seeing how he is the only major Jewish figure that stands out at the end of the siege of Jerusalem who "continues more years than the king of the north"._

 _The "fortress" is probably Masada; as this was the only major remaining fortress which didn't belong to the Romans that had been built by Herod the Great and was still in Jewish hands by the siege of Jerusalem. (Antonia was built for and always belonged to Rome.) Although Masada is technically south of Jerusalem, it was still "of the north's kingdom" as the Romans occupied all of Judea south and west of it, as well as Jerusalem and much of the immediate north and west. Masada is south east of Jerusalem about 3/4 of the way south of "center" of the Dead Sea. The southern most portion of Agrippa II kingdom was on the other side of the Dead Sea._

 _Josephus was a descendent of the Hasmonean high priest Jonathan/Apphus (151 BC) Josephus was 5 generations later and a direct descendent of Matthias who was a priest in the temple. Which daughter of which king is his ancestor, can only be hypothesized because none of Josephus's female ancestors are named. This may not have been an "accidental oversight" on Josephus's part._

 _As far as the Herodian side of the family tree; there are a couple of possibilities for this king's daughter. Herod the Great's 2nd wife was a Hasmonean princess and through her line, several female descendants are possible relatives to Josephus. There are 5 known possibilities of "king's daughter attempt a pact with king of the north" as there are 5 recorded incidence of female descendants out of this Hasmonean line who intermarried with Herodian kings; all of which carried portions of a kingdom at one point or another. Which of course, because Daniel 11 covers the reigns of multiple "kings of the north" and "kings of the south"; (some of whom also overlap with each other) it may not possible to determine which king's daughter this is._

 _One possibility though that we get out of the New Testament is Herodias. She was Herod Antipas's (Philip) wife. Now when Herod had John arrested, on account of Herodias's request; John told Herod that it's unlawful for you to have her. So is this the king's daughter this passage in Daniel is prophesying about? I don't know for sure. I will guess "yes"; simply because she and this incident are named in the Scripture and that is not accidental._

 _For the vast majority of the time though, the Roman governors politically ruled the Judean province. Much of who made up the Sadducees of the Sanhedrin though, came from the Hasmonean line and they held "kingship" of power to the nation on account of their membership as part of the Sanhedrin. This is how the Hasmoneans remained part of the picture. The Sadducees were the more politically (as they related to Rome) moderate arm of the Sanhedrin; but also theologically more liberal._

 **Explanation of the operation of Herod the Great and his dealings with the Hasmonean Dynasty:**

The king of the south goes into the king of the north's land and then returns to his own.

His sons (north) assemble an army, pass through the land, return to their own and are "stirred up".

South attacks the north and looses his people to the north.

North becomes proud, casts down many people, but is not made stronger by his actions.

Years pass and the king of the north mounts a counter attack.

 ** _Antigonus II Mattathias_** _(Ruler of Judea until 37 BC when Herod the Great turns him over to Roman authorities for execution.)_

In those times many stand up against the king of the south. The robbers of the (Jewish) people _(Pharisees)_ also stand against the king of the south _(Hasmonean Sadducees)_ ; to exalt themselves and "establish the vision" but they fail.

 _This is probably a reference to Scripture / i.e. this vision in Daniel. This vision is often used trying to fit events and kings from the Maccabean revolt into this prophecy. Because the Sadducees disappeared after the destruction of Jerusalem, we only get bits and pieces of their side of the story. Most of the history of the 1st century Jewish laws, traditions and the history itself, we have today; have been filtered through Rabbinic Judaism, which is an offshoot of the Pharisees._

 _Now because the Pharisees (and later Rabbinic_ _Judaism) did/do not want to acknowledge the Scripture verses that talk about the Messiah here in Daniel 11; the interpretation that this is fulfilled by events related to the Maccabean revolt comes from them._

 _If we read the language carefully though, we see that these verses give us some clues in "a ruler who removes the reproach against the inhabitance of the city; but not the king", "the prince of the covenant", "the people of the covenant". It also talks about "the abomination that makes desolate", "taking away the daily sacrifice and polluting the sanctuary". Several other passage in Daniel help us understand what some of these mean and that they are not related to post Babylonian / Maccabean lore._

The king of the north shall build a siege mound and take a fortified city. (This term is sometimes used in reference to Jerusalem.) The armies of the south or their chosen soldiers will not withstand.

 ** _Herod the Great begins his building projects._**

King of the north stands in the "glorious land" and consumes it. With the strength of his whole kingdom and "ones who are strait / upright" with him, he takes the city. He shall give the "daughter" of the "wife" to destroy it (the city) but she will not go along with the plan.

King of the north shall turn his face to the coast land; but "shall bring to an end, (comes) a ruler who will remove the reproach against them (inhabitance of the city), yet leave the reproach of him" (the king of the north).

 ** _Birth of Christ. (7 BC)_**

Then the king of the north shall turn his face toward the fort of his own land. He will stumble and fall and not be found.

 ** _Herod the Great's death: (4 BC)_**

In his place shall come a "raiser of taxes"; but he only lasts a "few days" and then "shall be destroyed neither in anger or battle".

 ** _Herod Archelaus king of Judea: (4 BC to 6 AD)_**

In his place comes a "vile person"; one who is not respected by the people but he comes in peaceably and takes the kingdom by flatteries.

 ** _Herod Antipus (4 BC to 39 AD)_**

And by arms as a flood shall they be overflowed from before him (this vile person) and shall be broken yes - also the prince of the covenant.

 ** _Christ's crucifixion (33 AD)_**

After the league made with him (king of the south) he (king of the north) will work deceitfully and become strong with a small people.

 _The "king of the south" here in verse 23 I think is Caiaphas the high priest as the "Hasmonean ruler". Yet because the following verses talk about the king of the south stirred up to battle with a very great and mighty army; we know that at least "the king" in verse 25, is probably Pilate. Also, Pilate was not in on any scheme against Jesus._

24 He shall enter peaceably even upon the fattest places of the province; and he shall do that which his fathers have not done, nor his fathers' fathers; he shall scatter among them the prey, and spoil, and riches: yea, and he shall forecast his devices against the strong holds, even for a time.

 _Now here's where things get kind of weird. Just as the beast in Revelation 13 has these crowns attached to it, which are kingdoms. The imputes behind the actions of these evil kings is also Satan. Here in this verse, we know this implies a span of rulers, (although directly addressing the one in this here and now passage); because it mentions "his fathers" and his "father's fathers". He (the evil "king") the prey (people), the spoil(er) - (i.e. - those who've taken the prey) and the riches (physical possessions of). These he will scatter against fortified cities. And he shall devise his plan (plan is singular but the action is imperfect tense - i.e. - a continued action) up until completion of (one) time._

 _Now what does this mean? (The next topic of this study will cover "time, times and 1/2 time" likely being increments of 500, 1000 and 2000 years.) So what is this "king" (or rather series of kings) directed by Satan, who scatters "prey", "predator" and "riches" for 1000 years? Here enters another "interesting coincidence"._

 _From the point of the return from the Babylonian captivity; the tribes of Judah and Benjamin and their mixed ancestry "cousins" the Samaritans existed of all that was left of the Israelite descendants of Abraham._

 _By the end of the 1st century; who was left of Judah and Benjamin, either converted to Christianity and left the area or were destroyed by the Roman army. What happened to the Samaritans though? Well 484 AD concluded the destruction of the Samaritans by the Byzantine empire in a series of conflicts known to history as "the Samaritan Revolts". This is exactly 1000 years between the year the temple built in Nehemiah's time was likely dedicated and the end of the Samaritan nation. The fact that this is a literal 1000 years; or a "time" can not be a coincidence._

25 And he shall stir up his power and his courage against the king of the south with a great army; and the king of the south shall be stirred up to battle with a very great and mighty army; but he shall not stand: for they shall forecast devices against him.

 _There were insurrections that occurred within the area during the 1st century time frame. (Thus the reason Barabbas was in jail. He was likely the son of a rabbi (possibly Hasmonean) who was the organizer of these guerrilla groups.)_

 _In the year prior to Jesus's crucifixion, there was an incident where Pilate sent his soldiers into the temple and killed a bunch of Galileans. This was probably Passover. This is recorded in Luke 13. The reason for Pilate's intervention can be surmised by the context of the passage. He mixed these Galileans' blood with their own sacrifice. This was probably a blood libel case and they were caught in the act. It seems an "insurrection" occurred following this incident, seeing how Barabbas was in jail for insurrection_ _and murder_ _! Pilate was on "probation" at the point of Jesus's crucifixion. So thus it seems, according to this verse in Daniel; they set Pilate up._

26 Yea, they that feed of the portion of his meat shall destroy him, and his army shall overflow: and many shall fall down slain.

 _Pilate was called back to Rome in 36 AD to answer to the the emperor over a riot in Samaria. Pilate disappears from history by 38 AD; yet there are no Roman records as to what happened to him. One "theory" is he was banished to some island and the other is that he committed suicide. "They that feed on the portion of his meat shall destroy him, his army shall overflow and many shall fall down slain." It fits._

27 And both of these kings' hearts shall be to do mischief, and they shall speak lies at one table; but it shall not prosper: for yet the end shall be at the time appointed.

 _Again, this looks like it applies more to Herod and Caiaphas than it would apply to Herod and Pilate, now that Pilate as taken out of the way. The "they shall speak lies at one table" also points us in the Herod / Caiaphas direction because again, Pilate had no dealings in the scheming against Jesus. The strongest argument though, that this is a present reference to an event in the past; (hearkening back to verse 23) is that this is imperfect tense. It's a reflection on what was done before verse 25 and 26 that lead to the outcome of this other "king of the south" in those verses._

29 At the time appointed he shall return, and come toward the south; but it shall not be as the former, or as the latter.

 ** _We appear to have a reference to a "time gap" between the "former" and the "latter" eluded, to be in the works._**


	22. Daniel 11 - End Time

**Daniel 11 - End of Time**

30 For the ships of Chittim shall come against him: therefore he shall be grieved, and return, and have indignation against the holy covenant: so shall he do; he shall even return, and have intelligence with them that forsake the holy covenant.

 _Geographically speaking, "Chittim" is the island of Cyprus. Yet these ships (word borrowed from Egyptian language which denotes a style of majestic ship); "coming" is in the perfect tense. This means these ships come continuously; which at this point, seems to indicate that the language is shifting more toward a metaphoric meaning at least as it relates to these "ships of Chittim"._

 _Now "Chittim" is derived from the Hebrew name Javan. Javan was a descendent of Japheth, who was a son of Noah. Javan's name means "dove". So the "(majestic) ships of the dove" are those which continuously come and trouble this king._

 _Seems reasonable to me to conclude that we have stepped into the book of Acts in these verses. Let's keep going._

31 And arms shall stand on his part, and they shall pollute the sanctuary of strength, and shall take away the daily sacrifice, and they shall place the abomination that makes desolate.

 _And strong (arms) shall take their stand (imperfect tense) and they shall pierce the holy place of fortification (protection) and shall depart (perfect tense) the continuous and shall give (instead) (perfect tense) the abomination (detestable idols) that makes desolate._

 ** _A couple of things going on in this verse._**

 _First, "with strong arms take their stand". At a point in history, they "consecutively pierce the holy place and depart from the ceaseless". They present, instead of the "ceaseless"; i.e. - the Messiah (also in the perfect tense - i.e. they present continuously) the abomination that makes desolate._

 _At one point I believed the "abomination that makes desolate" was the animal sacrifices offered after Christ came on the scene; and I think contextually, as it related to the end of one system (Judaism) and the beginning of the next (preach the gospel) that's true._

 _Yet because this is in the perfect tense, it's telling us that the "abomination that makes desolate" although it was punctuated by a one time event that happened in history; the ramifications of it's "completing event" goes on even after the animal sacrifices end. This "abomination that makes desolate" continues to judgement day. So therefore, I've come to the conclusion that the definition can be broader than the end of Old Testament Judaism._

 _Generically speaking; I think it's fair to say that any false system today that departs from a sound understanding of who Jesus is; which is "coming in the spirit of anti-christ" could qualify as part of the "abomination that makes desolate"._

 _More specifically though, because the word "abomination" is in the singular and since this "abomination" was specifically connected to the Old Testament system; it very well may be restricted specifically to Judaism._

 ** _The "church age":_**

32 And such as do wickedly against the covenant shall he corrupt by flatteries: but the people that do know their God shall be strong, and do exploits.

33 And they that understand among the people shall instruct many: yet they shall fall by the sword, and by flame, by captivity, and by spoil, many days.

34 Now when they shall fall, they shall be helped with a little help: but many shall cleave to them with flatteries.

35 And some of them of understanding shall fall, to try them, and to purge, and to make them white, even to the time of the end: because it is yet for a time appointed.

 _These 4 verses encompass the entirety of the New Testament "because it is yet for a time appointed". The portion of these 4 verses I find most intriguing is "but many shall cleave to them with flatteries". The following verses appear that we have a "king" who's arisen post a particular (and at this point rather lengthy) passage of time._

36 And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvelous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that is determined shall be done.

37 Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

38 But in his estate shall he honor the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honor with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.

39 Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory: and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for gain.

40 And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over.

 _Now is it possible that this "king" as a political figure, is looked upon by the current "Jews" as their "messiah"? After all a political messiah is what they want, as well as what they are looking for. Who is / will be Israel's Prime Minister in the next 14 years?_

 ** _The very end:_**

 _All the verses related to this "king's" actions are in the imperfect tense. So this leads me to believe that these are indeed political events that take place at the very end of time concerning the literal Middle-East. The "south" and "north" are the same words used in the rest of the passage._

 _Comparing current Israel to Herod's kingdom (Herod the Great); current Israel is longer but narrower. What was once the "northern" portion of Herod the Great's divided kingdom, now belongs to Syria. (The southern most portion which Israel is fighting with Syria over is called The Golan Heights.) The "southern" portion of Herod's divided kingdom ended at the southern most boarder of the Dead Sea stretching across in a strait line to the Mediterranean. In the days of Herod, the south and eastern boarder of the Dead Sea was simply labeled "Arabia". The southern portion of current Israel was primarily inhabited by Bedouins before WWII; and was last part of the Ottoman Empire prior to WWI._

 _"_ _The time of the end" is the very last span of time that these events are set to take place in. This is not a general terminology like "the last days" (as we see in Acts; Peter talks about "these are the last days"). This "end" is the close of a specific era. That era right before the final judgement. We understand this because the beginning of Daniel chapter 12 talks about the final resurrection._

41 He shall enter also into the glorious land, and many countries shall be overthrown: but these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon.

 _"_ _Many countries be overthrown" means they stumble on account of this king (of "Israel"), but are not destroyed._

 _Edom = Descendants of Esau. The name means - "red" It's a derivative of another Hebrew word (Adom) which is a type of seed. Tis also an extrapolation of the name "Adam" which also means "red". (This is generally interpreted as related to having "red blood"; (not a racial thing). He "created in the image of God", yet also having "red blood" as all other mammals do too; thus connecting humanity to our "earthiness" as created entities._

 _Moab = Descendants of Lot. The name means - "father". "Ab" which is likely where Aramaic (which is a derivative language of Hebrew) gets "Abba" from._

 _Chief of the children of Ammon. The "choice" or "select" of the children of Ammon. The name means - "with". So loosely translated the "children of Ammon" are the "people with". Geographically, these people lived east of the Jordan river._

 _So what do these names mean? Is it "the select of the people (of Adam) with the seed of the Father" are the ones who escape? I.E. - the elect of Christ who are in Christ; who (He) was the "seed of the Father" literally conceived by the Holy Ghost._

 _This would make sense in the context of New Testament end of time. These are not races of people being eluded to; even though these the literal descendants of these races are still in existence today. But this is more referring to those who belong to God (where ethnic / racial lineage is of non-issue). Here is an example where spiritual truth is couched in historical (in this case biological lineage) realities._

42 He shall stretch forth his hand also upon the countries: and the land of Egypt shall not escape.

 _Stretch out his hand upon the countries means to send away an allegiance of; implying all of the countries of earth. And the "land of Egypt"; again implying all the earth, "shall not have an escape". This will make more sense contextually when we look at the next couple of verses. We will see that this "allegiance" is actually an economic system that controls the money supply; which appears that as we get closer and closer to Judgement Day, there are political powers at work trying to dismantle the stranglehold this monetary/political system has on them. It does appear from the context of these verses, that the nations make an effort to dismantle the beast system we read about in Revelation 13._

43 But he shall have power over the treasures of gold and of silver and over all the precious things of Egypt: and the Libyans and the Ethiopians shall be at his steps.

 _"_ _Egypt" here is in the singular and appears on the surface to be talking about literal Egypt (as opposed to "Egypt" symbolically representing the rest of the nations of the world). Upon a little further investigation though, (as well as looking at the context of the verse before) we come to a bit of an interesting conclusion; which I'll get to in a minute._

 _The "treasures of gold and silver" seem to imply a bit of a different reach. They are "hidden treasures" of "gold" (measure of wealth) and "silver" ("for greed of" literal currency)._

 _Now the largest "market" in the Middle East today is all tied to Saudi Arabian wealth, which primarily stems out of their oil industry. So this here also clues us in, that "Egypt" isn't talking about literal Egypt. It's but another example of spiritual truth couched in historical reality._

 _"_ _Egypt" in the Hebrew, is derived from a duel form of a word that means "siege trench". (Where have we heard that term before?) Now this is fascinating, because one of the words in Revelation that talks about the "mark of the beast", as it relates to economics, is also the word "siege trench". Which this_ ** _can't_** _be a coincidence. So this "king" / "kingdom" having control over the economic monetary system, is what this appears to be metaphorically referencing as "Egypt"._

 _Now "Libya" means "people afflicted with thirst" and "Ethiopia" is derived from an adjective that means "dark" and is usually taken as a reference to skin color; ("their darkness") although in this context, this doesn't have anything to do with race._

 _The last part of the verse "shall be at his steps" is derived from a word meaning "to march after". So "the people afflicted with thirst" and those in "darkness" "march after" this "king" who controls them with an "economic siege trench"._

 _Now isn't that all starting to sound a lot like the book of Revelation!_

44 But tidings out of the east and out of the north shall trouble him: therefore he shall go forth with great fury to destroy, and utterly to make away many.

 _"_ _East" here means "rising of the sun"; but since the news that troubles him is in the imperfect tense, this is likely a referencing some thing (nation) to the literal east of Israel. Now "north" is simply an extended version of "north" used in the rest of the passage._

 _What is currently directly north of Israel, is Syria. What is allied north of that, is Russia. What is currently east of Israel is Iran and what's allied east of Iran, is China. Now China and Russia have a very interesting role (and impact) on the current stage of the world economy; as this relates to how they connect to the world's currency and the banking system._

 _Both right now are jockeying for the position of "economic super power". Both are also rushing to develop their own monetary and exchange systems. Neither want to be part of the Rothschild banking system. (And I can't blame them!) They want to develop their own banking systems and become leaders in the world. Both certainly have the potential; in industry, as well as natural resources and (China especially) human labor force to accomplish this._

45 And he shall plant the tabernacles of his palace between the seas in the glorious holy mountain; yet he shall come to his end, and none shall help him.

 ** _He shall establish nomadic tents of his royal pavilion between the seas and the mountain - beautiful and sanctified. Yet he shall come to his end and one will not help him._**

 _Now this is ambiguous enough that it could have several meanings. "Royal pavilion" is from a Persian word. It took some digging to find out what the original meant and as it turns out; it is a type of palace that had a hall for the king to hold audience in._

 _"Nomadic tents" (the word is plural) is also of an unusual origin and carries the implication of where families of (animals or people) are temporarily housed._

 _So "n_ _omadic tents" of his "royal audience hall" is "between the seas" and the "holy mountain"._

 _"_ _Seas" is also ambiguous. In Biblical geography it generally refers to the Mediterranean, the Dead Sea or the Sea of Galilee._

 _The "mountain" alone is also not definitive. "Holy Mountain" in several passages in the Old Testament is a reference to Jerusalem. "Beautiful" means its "adorned" or "ornamented". In Psalm 87:1 the "foundation" is in the "holy mountain". Isaiah 57:13 - the "holy mountain" is "inherited" by God's people. Other passages in Isaiah God's people dwell in the "holy mountain". So, I don't see this "beautiful holy mountain" as a reference to geographic Jerusalem. I think it's a reference to God's Jerusalem, which is made up of believers around the globe._

 _The other possibility that strikes me, is because the "nomadic tents" of his "royal audience hall" are not permanent structures; could it possibly still be "geographic" in a certain sense, yet not speaking of "Israel" at all? It's "between the seas and the holy mountain". Could it be, not seas on one side and holy mountain on the other; but sea on one side, sea on the other side and "holy mountain" "among"?_

 _If that's the case; could it be that this "king's" "temporary tent / audience hall" is the United States "between the seas"? If that is the case, this would make "geographic_ _sense" as the largest Christian populations are in North and South America._

 _Is it_ _metaphoric for this siege trench economic / monetary system of control? Are the "nomadic tents" sent forth from the "royal pavilion" or are they actually the "royal pavilion"? It's hard to tell, but I lean more toward the notion of the nomadic tents being the royal pavilion._

 _Which in turn, this leaves an interesting impression because "nomadic tents" are not permanent structures, and so if this is indeed a reference to this siege trench economic system; does this mean that this system will be in the process of being dismantled; (attempted to be moved to Israel?) although the political entity will continue to Judgement day? That seems to be what these passages imply._

"He will come to his end"; which means he will exist strait up to judgement day. And "one will not help him". This is interesting because the "one who will not help him" is in the singular. Now if we connect this back to the nations that he "sent back allegiances of" and the "one" (left standing) who now "will not help him". In modern political terms, that would be the United States.

 ** _Q-anon:_**

Now I talked before about this Internet phenomena, where certain people in governments around the world are working together to take down the global "deep state". They, as well as the patriot movements in these nations are collectively called "Q". There's all these issues at steak in the human realm, concerning nations' sovereignty and human rights; national constitutions and the fundamental ability of nation's populous to keep rogue governments in check. This is embodied in the US constitution's 2nd amendment - the right to bear arms. All these things "hang in the balance" as related specifically to political empires and the masses they rule over; which in turn affects religious liberty. So yes, in practice terms, these political issues are important.

All of this though, appears to me to be the outcropping of prophetic fulfillment of these movements taking place in our world currently. Will they dismantle a portion of the system? Apparently they try and it does appear that they have some success. Is this part of the "wounding of the beast's head"? I have no idea. It would probably behoove me to take a closer look at that. All of this though does fit together with an uncanny accuracy of being able to "read the signs of the times". As I've said so often in this study: if any of this really means nothing - there certainly appear to be a lot of "interesting coincidences".


	23. Time, Times and half a Time (part 1)

**Time, Times and Half a Time**

 **Part 1**

This particular study will look at the phase "times" as it applies to the span between Pentecost and Judgement day. Of course with my predilection to research and tendency to write a lot - this subject will have 2 parts.

"Times" is the same Greek word used in Revelation's "Time, times and 1/2 time" "Chronologies" sometimes translated as "times" (and seasons) is distinguished from "times" in these passages. In all these passages; "chronologies" and "times" are in the plural.

 _ **Times Definition:**_

This term means not only a chronology of minutes or days, but more an "appointed time", a "proper season", a "time of opportunity". There are passages where this word is combined with "chronology" and therefore would seem to hold a stronger indication of a specific planned out time period God has appointed that event X, or events X,Y, and Z would occur in.

 _ **Seasons Definition:**_

Now this Greek word carries more the implication of a chronology of minutes or days, than a "time of opportunity". So again, combining "times and season" would seem to indicate that this "time of opportunity" is happening with in this "chronology of minutes or days".

So what's interesting about all these passages is that if a "time" is roughly 1000 years and a "season" is specifically 1000 years; there is an amazing congruence of language here which certainly fits historically. Does this mean something, or is it just more "interesting coincidences"? I guess we'll know the answer come 2033 AD.

 _ **New Testament Passages:**_

 **Luke 21:24** "… Jerusalem trampled under foot until the _**times**_ of the gentiles be fulfilled"

 _2000 years of opportunity for "the nations" to be redeemed. This is interesting when we get to Acts 17 - which I'll talk about when we get "down there"._

 **Acts 1:7** "… the _**chronologies**_ of _**times**_ the Father put in His own power."

 _The days counted of opportunity the Father put in His own power. This appears to be Jesus's amendment to "no man knows the day or the hour". That phrase (Matthew 24); was spoken before the crucifixion and before Jesus's soul had ascended to heaven upon his death (while body "rested" in the tomb for the Sabbath)._

 _After rising from the dead, Jesus is now saying "chronologies of times", not only in reference to being the King now reigning, but also in reference to the concept of the destruction of this current universe. I'm not sure the disciples understood, or realized when they'd originally asked Jesus about "the end of the age" that Jesus gave them two answers. There's the end of the Old Testament age and then there's THE END!_

 **Acts 3:20, 21** "… _**times**_ of refreshing come from the presence of the Lord and He shall send Jesus Christ…" (vs 21) "…behooves heaven indeed to receive until the _**chronologies**_ of restoration of all things which God by the mouth of holy the age (of) His prophets.

 _Verse 20 is talking about the return of Jesus upon the destruction of the cosmos. The "chronologies of restoration" are these increments of years that stretch all the way back to the beginning of time._

 _ **How old is this universe?**_

Now if we calculate the age of the earth based on the genealogies in the Bible, we have a universe that's about 13,000 years old. (1988 was earth's 13,000 birthday.)

We calculate the time based on lining up Old Testament patriarchs' ages end on end. The only exception is when we have a passage where the father has a son and "calls his name". In those instances, it's a direct father son relationship. Other wise, "patriarch A" begat (the ancestor of) "patriarch B" when "patriarch A" was "X years old". The named "patriarch B" is actually born in the same year "patriarch A" dies.

So from 1988 to 2033 is 46 years; (or 13,045 years if we subtract 1 from the entire timetable because there is no year "0".)

 _ **The number 45 is only used two places in Scripture:**_

The first reference is in Genesis and has to do with the destruction of Sodom and Gomorra. In the "count down" of "will you destroy the city if…." 45 righteous men is one of the numbers used. God will not will not destroy the city if 45 righteous are found. Interestingly though, it's Abraham who keeps lowering the number. He starts with 50, drops to 45, then 40, then 30, then, 20, then 10. Starting with 50, to 45 to 40 is the only span where we see drops of increments of 5; (the rest are increments of 10). Is there some meaning to that? I don't know.

Was this indicative of the fact that Abraham feared (or on some level knew) there weren't 10 righteous men in Sodom? Not sure, but that's a pretty heavy inditement against "the city" as the end comes closer and closer. Will those of the redeemed "left standing" on the last day actually be very few (in comparison to all who claim to be Christians)? I don't know, but if the end of time is parabolically represented by Sodom and Gomorra; that appears to be the case.

The second reference is in Joshua when Joshua is recounting the entrance into the promised land. They wandered in the wilderness 40 years before coming to Canna; but it was another 5 years before they crossed the Jordan and took the land.

It's probably not a coincidence that both these two references have duel relation to destruction of two cities (i.e. the cosmos) and coming into the promised land (i.e. recreated heavens and earth).

 _ **Th** ** _e_ number 46 is used one place in the Scripture:**_

This is in reference to the number of years the temple was under construction. The Jews are asking Jesus: 46 years this temple was under construction and you will raise it in 3 days?

Now keep in mind that Jesus's death and resurrection also appears to have a parabolic relation to the end. Jesus faced the wrath of God (the atonement) and the resurrection will be the recreation of the new heavens and new earth at the end of time.

Now another few "interesting coincidences" that also fit into this time line:

 _ **20th century history?**_

 _ **1987:**_

(46 years before 2033) saw the founding of The Temple Institute in Israel. This is the major organization looking to rebuild the temple. It's currently ,"under the table backed" by prime minister Netanyahu; as well as American casino mogul Sheldon Adelson. Adelson financed (through the back door) Netanyahu's campaign. He did so through donations from a private newspaper he started called Israel Hayom. This paper is circulated free of charge and is basically a propaganda machine for right wing Israeli political policies. Adelson though, is also the main financier to Donald Trump's campaign. More on Adelson later.

Politically, 1987 also saw the first Intifada, when at the end of the war with Lebanon (which started in 1982) ended with concessions that were suppose to be made for the West Bank and the Golan Heights. There was rioting in Jerusalem at the end of that year over access to what is called "the temple mount".

 _ **Temple Mount?**_

The actual temple was not where the Dome of the Rock mosque is. The Herodian temple was south of that complex inside the "City of David". The current "temple mount" is actually what's left of what had been the Antonia Fortress in the 1st century. The Antonia Fortress was a Roman military base built by Herod.

What's called "the foundation stone" by "temple mount" adherents; is a natural feature of the land that was either (or was incorporated as part of) what the Romans called "the pavement". This was also called "the judgement stone" and was part of the Praetorium that was inside the Antonia Fortress. This is where Pilate heard the case against Jesus.

So yes, this stone has historical significance, but it does not have the historical significance some people think it has.

Now was this stone actually part of "Mt. Moriah" that Abraham came to and "saw the place of sacrifice in the distance"? (Abraham would have been looking at the Mt. of Olives.) Chronicles says Solomon built the temple "in Mt. Moriah". So based on the Scripture and the general area that we know where things had been erected; I think it's safe to say that "Mt Moriah" is not one specific "mountain", but more what we'd call a collection of hills.

Also currently, the highest point in Jerusalem is the Mount of Olives, so obviously the temple was not built on the highest hill in the area. What is left of Antonia also clues us in to the fact that the Mount of Olives was still the highest point back in the 1st century. There is some recordings in Josephus's writings of Jews being upset at "Caesar's standard" being "above the temple"; and yes Antonia the military base was probably geographically higher than the temple. We don't really know though since the southern end where the temple had been, was totally leveled; (as Jesus said it would be). Also obviously, a military base would have had Roman flags in it; also of which Josephus records Pilate removed some of this Roman military paraphernalia on account of these complaints.

 _ **1988:**_

(45 years before 2033) also saw some major events in the history of Zionism. This was the year a petition for a Palestinian state was brought before the UN as part of a peace accord. This proposal was sparked by the Palestinian Declaration of Independence. The penning of the Palestinian Declaration of Independence was sparked by issues concerning the West Bank and Golan Heights that came about as a result of the 1982 war with Lebanon.

So in 1988, the UN recognized Palestine as a "state", as opposed to The PLO just having a representative in the UN. Yasser Arafat, who was the leader of the PLO at the time, agreed to certain terms, by acknowledging that Israel the nation had a right to exist. The newly declared "Palestinian state" was hoping acknowledging Israel would get them some leverage in also formally establishing a Palestinian state. US president Ronald Reagan acknowledged Arafat's declaration and assigned a US ambassador to conference with "Palestine" about their plans for a two state solution.

Needless to say, the rest is history and there is still not a Palestinian state. (There probably never will be.) The Palestinians want "Palestinian Jerusalem" to be the capital of their nation. The Zionists though, do not want to share Jerusalem with anyone. Because of the conflict between the two sides; the "trust" for this geographical area (which the "temple mount" is inside of) is held by the Jordanian government.

The Israeli government though, since 1988 has gotten itself in greater and greater disfavor with nations of the UN over all of this. The domestic policy now seems to be: "Let's just keep expanding into these settlements declared illegal by international law and eventually we can just kick all the Palestinians out - and by default we get all of Jerusalem. Then we can "relocate" Al Aqusa Mosque; (which is a different building than the Dome of the Rock Mosque: that is called Al-Sakhrah) and put our temple up."

As Israeli politics become more and more "religiously fundamental" in their shift to the right; this idea picks up more and more support in both Israel and in the US too, as Christian Zionism becomes more and more entrenched in American politics. Is this "good", "bad", "indifferent", "all three"; or just "part of the plan"? That all may depend on which pair of glasses one is wearing. What is preordained to come to pass; will. That does not mean though that human sin (and at time grievous human sin) is not involved. Moral wrong is still wrong; even when its consequences bring about God's plan.

 _ **Shifting Demographics:**_

 _ **Israel**_ **-** Currently 74% of Israel's population is by "tribal association" - "Jewish"; 20% is Arab (most of the Arabs live in the north) and 5% makes up "other" (non-Arab Christians, work/school visa residents, African migrant workers and illegal aliens). More adherents to Rabbinic Judaism live in Israel today than live in the rest of the world. The Israeli Jewish population just recently surpassed the American Jewish population. 44% of Israeli Jews identify themselves as "secular"; yet only 11% as "religious" and 9% as "ultra orthodox".

This only accounts for 60% of the Israeli Jewish population - what about the unaccounted 40%? If these don't identify themselves as "secular"; then what are they? I'm sure in this mix somewhere are "religious Jews" of other religions; the greatest subsection being Christian Messianic. That being said though, I'm sure the remaining 40% are not Christian Messianic's and they certainly aren't Muslims. So what are they? In the light of this "missing information", is it safe to suggest that the religious Jewish population in Israel has now surpassed the secular Jewish population? I don't really know the answer to that question, although that seems it could be a distinct possibility; especially looking at the current shift in Israeli politics.

 _ **United States**_ **-** Now American politics in 2016 saw a seismic shift with the election of Donald Trump. Despite what the mainstream media says; Trump's domestic policies are popular with the American people and concepts of nationalism (or patriotism) are gaining ground around the world.

This upsurge in the ideology of America for Americans, France for the French, Germany for Germans, etc. appears to have its American counterpart related to Zionism. This ideology of national / patriotism has birthed in America, a "growing separation" (and I use this term "separation" loosely) of Israel for Jews is to be separate from American politics. There is no denying that a waffling and wavering of organizations like AIPAC has emerged with the American people; as more and more the public begins to question those associations. This is particularly true as it relates to the questions raised by nationalists and liberals alike; of why are we giving so much money to this country to be continuously engaged in endless wars, particularly in the Middle-East?

The flip side of this though is legislation now passed that aims to curb people's freedom of speech and freedom of choice to boycott and criticize Israel for its policies related to treatment of Palestinians. The recently passed legislation seeks to equate this as "anti-semitism" and "hate speech"; which is ridiculous because the growing criticism of the sate of Israel is coming from multiple angles. It's not just nationalists and those commonly recognized as racist hate groups, but also includes large sections of orthodox (and secular liberal) Jews; who live in the United States and who have no intension of moving to Israel.

This now begins to resemble a very similar social set up as we saw in the 1930's in Europe.

Despite this shift related to nationalism though, the further entrenchment of Christian Zionism is certainly alive and kicking in the United States. As belief systems become more and more polarized; successfully "red pilling" Christian Zionists particularly, is more and more difficult.

In the US, we more and more live in a political environment where people tend to gravitate toward towing the more extreme ends of the party lines. This may be more noticeable in the US because the United States is a two party political system, whereas Europe is a multi-party political system.

In the US, if one holds a position on a certain topic thought to be "liberal" or "conservative"; the assumption is that all of one's beliefs are "liberal" or "conservative". I am politically more conservative, although I am a non-party affiliated voter. Conservatives, especially evangelical Christians (which is by far the largest "voting block" in the US - actually in the world) tend to be overwhelmingly Zionistic. So the assumption is that if you don't support Israel, then you must be a liberal.

 _ **Europe -**_ As per Europe? They too are seeing an upsurge in nationalism of the indigenous populations. At current, clashes in Europe tend to erupt a little more readily to violence. This is do to varying factors in Europe that haven't hit American shores to the same extremes. The US has not contended with socialistic governments as long as Europe has and also has a much smaller migrant / immigrant (from certain parts of the world) population. So yes, cultural and policy conflicts in Europe are erupting more into violence as indigenous populations in Europe are getting more and more fed up.

This upsurge in nationalism should not be surprising, as the same thing happened at the end of World War One; when droves of people from Eastern Europe and Russia were coming west because of the Bolsheviks. Most of these immigrants settled in Germany and Austria and a large number of them were Ashkenazi in ethnicity, although not necessarily "Jewish" by religion. Many were "secular Jews" and there were many who'd converted to Christianity. Many of these immigrants came to appreciate living in what had been the German empire and a sizable number of them did volunteer to fight for Germany in World War Two.

Today though, Europe is facing a very different issue as many of the migrants that come into Europe do not assimilate well into European society. Some of this is an issue of cultural incongruence and some of that, is perpetuated by actual governmental policies of these European nations.

European nations tend to gravitate toward what I'd call "ghettoization" policy; where non-indigenous populations tend to gather in ghettos and are not expected to assimilate into the greater society. America didn't do that. Actual governmental policies of the past, tended to break up immigrant pockets and spread people across the country; often forcibly, in order to assimilate these groups.

 _ **Freedom / democracy and the beast system:**_

For the longest time, American immigration policy would only take people from countries deemed best compatible with American culture. The US would take dissidents from other nations (Muslim countries like Iran) who were willing to adopt and assimilate into the greater American culture, as opposed to those trying to change American society to suit their own cultural tastes.

I personally agree with the idea of immigrant assimilation. For a society to thrive, it needs a common language and a common culture. If people want to add their cultural flavors (food, clothing, ideas of peace and cooperation, cultural wisdom etc.) to the greater American society; I welcome that. But, for example: if you want to live under Sharia law - move back to the Middle-East.

The US takes a lot of immigrants (about a million a year) and takes more refugees (in volume of numbers) than any other nation that settles refugees. The impact of refugees on American society is much smaller than the impact on Europe though, simply because of the sheer size the the United States in comparison to nations in Europe. That being said; it's still difficult for people from certain parts of the world to legally immigrate to the United States.

Make what you want of those policies; but here is where nations' autonomy and right to self govern comes into play. The UN can not dictate to member nations how to run their own internal affairs and here is one example of where the cracks in "the beast system" are starting to show. The system is ultimately unsustainable and eventually will crumble; even if just left to its own devices. The other factor here, is that the apparatus of the beast system does not want to take on the nations' populace; particularly the United States, on account of a rather heavily armed citizenry.

 _ **Conclusion?**_

 _Well, from here I've decided maybe it's time for a "mini detour chapter" before we get back to the Bible verses for "time, times and 1/2 time". In this "mini detour chapter" I'll address some things in the book of Daniel about this alleged end times king and present some curious speculation as to who or what may be on the political scene in the next 13 years._


	24. Kings? People in the neighborhood

**_Kings? "Who are the people in your neighborhood?"_**

So as we open this section, before we get back to the Bible verses. We do see some "interesting coincidences" that do correlate with similar time tables in the 1st century.

45 and 46 years from earth's 13,000 year history (possibly) coming to "the end"; just as Jesus's death burial and resurrection was upon the conclusion of 46 years of "temple under construction" back in the 1st century. Does this really mean anything? I don't know.

More note worthy though, is that we also see some correlation to things spoken about in the end of Daniel, where this "king" "turns away nations" and "one won't stand with him" just before Jerusalem is "destroyed in an hour". Now is "the king" spoken of in this passage one person? (Israel has had 7 prime ministers since 1987/88 and it's looking likely Netanyahu will not be prime minister for too much longer.)

 _ **King who? from where?**_

And here is where my question about Sheldon Adelson comes in. Is he this "king" who "set his palace between the seas and the holy mountain"; (seeing how all his investment wealth is linked to casinos in the US)?

I don't know?

Yet it is reasonable to assume, that if we really are that close to the end and if my interpretation of Daniel 11 is correct; than this "king" or other personalities which may be relevant, very well could be "on the scene" currently.

Although, just as with the 1st century; would these things be obvious to the rest of the world? (And I suppose the answer to that would be: It depends on what they are looking for.) I have been doing some hunting in the Scripture as of late; and I haven't found any Scriptural support for the concept of a reconstructed temple and a false messiah; (or at least in the context as the dispensationalists present). For the Scripture to be true and Jesus "comes as a thief in the night" (as He said that He will) the dispensationalist concept of the temple reconstruction and anti-Christ is too obvious. After all, the book of John declares that Judas Iscariot is the "son of perdition". Now who would have guessed that, if the Scripture hadn't so clearly declared it?

So, Adelson having been born in 1933, makes him 85 years old in 2019. He could conceivably live to see 2033. (He'd be 99 years old.) Now how plausible is that and will it happen? I don't know that either; but it honestly does not seem likely. Yet, he is ranked currently 20th richest man in the world and the top Jewish donor of conservative American / Israeli / Zionist politics.

There are American Jewish political donors wealthier than Adelson, who are either Democrat leaning, Libertarian, or donate to both parties. Many of these others tend to be "neutral" or even politically "anti-Zionist" though. (American political liberals don't tend to be pro-Zionist.) There is another family who ranks above Adelson in wealth and is also currently heavily involved as donors in conservative American politics; but they are not Jewish. Warren Buffett also heavily invests in Israeli tech companies; although he is not Jewish either. The other two at the top of the current pile are also American gentiles. The remainder of the pack of "the worlds richest individuals" are Asian or Mexican.

 _ **2024 US President?**_

Here is another possible interesting angle from the world of potential "internet conspiracy theories"; Jered Kushner. Mr, Kushner is the Jewish son-in-law of Donald Trump and many speculate that he is actually the one running the US presidency. Now I honestly don't think that's 100% "spot on", just because of Donald Trump's personality. Trump is a very strong willed individual, who's not inclined to bend to any policy interference he's not forced into via other political power agendas. In this sense Trump is a typical power figure; just not one that came as originating from part of the political establishment.

So who's going to be the US Republican candidate for 2024?

One anon posted a question to Q: "Is there a plan for after Trump?" Q's response was: "Yes!" Now what is that plan? There have been very few "crumbs" dropped by Q on this question; but for anyone who follows Israeli politics closely, that arrow seems to be pointing to Kushner. Personally I would not be surprised if he is the 2024 presidential candidate presented by the Republican party. Now if I am correct in this assessment of "reading the political tea leaves" and if whomever that ends up being runs two terms, this would bring us up to the end of 2032. What would be planned after that; I don't have enough "political tea leaves" to speculate on.

There are some interesting Israeli connections here though; which does bolster this speculation. Kushner has ties to Netanyahu, whom both of them have ties to the Chabad-Lubavitch movement. Kushner is also the one tasked with developing a peace agreement between the Arabs and Israelis. Now there is some speculation out there as to what that peace agreement involves and it will be interesting to see what is presented as it's rumored to be "rolled out" in June of 2019. It will be interesting to see what happens here and whether or not that plan is on target time table wise. More on the speculation of what that plan consists of later.

 _ **What is the Chabad-Lubavitch movement?**_

Chabad is an Orthodox Jewish Hasidic philosophy that started in 1775 by a Russian Rabbi Shneur Zaiman of Liadi. "Chabad" is an acronym that combines 3 Hebrew words "wisdom", "understanding" and "knowledge" into a humanitarian / religious philosophy. The religious aspect of the philosophy involves studying the Kabbalah. The Kabbalah is a body of literature expounding upon Jewish mysticism. "Lubavitch" is derived from the town in Russia that Rabbi Zaiman's movement started from. Chabad, as an idea began to spread through many Hasidic factions in Russia and so "Lubavitch" originally identified the particular flavor of the philosophy. Over the course of the centuries and especially since the end of WWII the "Lubavitch" "flavor" / "branch" has become the predominant vein of the philosophy.

Today Chabad-Lubavitch is the largest "sect" within Rabbinic Judaism. If we were to compare this in terms of Christian denominations; it would be fair to call it the "Roman Catholic Church" of the Jewish world; as more than half of the Jewish population is affiliated with it in one form or another. The movement (like the RCC) has set up humanitarian causes all over the world. They've erected hospitals and educational institutions, social institutions and the such like. They are an outreach Hasidic movement, where as most Hasidic sects prior to the dawn of this philosophy were separatist in practice. The movement has grown exponentially on account of its outreach to secular Jews. So in this sense, not only is this movement "the RCC" of the Jewish world, it's also "the Masonic Lodge" of the Jewish world too, in that it has both "religious" and "secular" tenants to it.

Of its origins; in Zaiman's line, there have been 7 rabbis. The last of which (Menachem Mendal Schneerson) was believed by great numbers of those in the movement, to be the messiah. Schneerson himself though, apparently made comments interpreted as eluding to being the messiah; yet at other points denied this. In a secular sense though, he very much was "the Jewish messiah of the 20th century", as he worked to unite a very fractured community that was now spread across the globe, primarily because of WWII. Schneerson died in 1994 (at 92 years old) which caused great consternation among the adherents of the movement. At that point it split into "messianic tenants" and "non messianic tenants".

Today, the movement has no "head rabbi"; which probably is a contributing factor to the movement's vast internal consternation as it has been involved in numerous internal law suites around the world. The "messianic tenants" tend to embarrass the "non messianic tenants", as many in the messianic camp still believe Schneerson is either in hiding somewhere, or will be resurrected soon. He's buried in New York City.

Which brings us to Rabbinic Judaism's current "messianic belief system" and how that all plays into the world's political system. (It's all part of the beast system.) The religious / messianic tenant of the Chabad-Lubavitch philosophy, has in it, a belief (which is also part of the overall orthodox Jewish belief system) that sees that it should apply its rule to the gentile world through what's called "Noahide laws". For the secular tenants of the philosophy, they see their role more as a cooperation among differing populations and tend to be more moderately conservative on the political field. The religious tenants though believe they are destine to rule everyone else; and here's where a very dark side of this comes into play. The underlying ideology is most notable in Israeli politics when it comes to dealings with the Palestinians. The religious tenants, out of their belief in their own religious and racial superiority, see their role as to subjugate everyone else.

This philosophy also holds sway for those secularists on the left / socialist / communist end of the political spectrum. In that camp (whether they be technically Jewish or not) they are the fascists of the world. We certainly see this in actions of groups like Antifa, as well as other politically leftist organizations that tote the "minorities are victims" and "ethnic European descended peoples are inherently and incurably racist" narrative. The philosophy these beliefs are attached to, is called Social Marxism.

 _ **666 Fifth Avenue?**_

Now here is an angle coming from many internet conspiracy theorists as to who is "the beast" and the roll of RFID chips allegedly connected to this address. Now obviously anyone who's been reading this study, knows what I think of these theories. Nevertheless, they are worth mentioning on account of the fact that the beast system has its own interpretation of things, but also (and maybe more importantly) uses other "misinformation campaigns" to avoid detection. So, here is a perfect example of such a thing.

 **Side note:** _Lucent Technologies; (the primary developers of RFID chips) came into being as a result of the break up of the Bell Phone Company (one "baby bell" became Bell Laboratories). Lucent grew with subsequent mergers of AT &T and other telecommunications technology companies in the decades that followed. As far as I can find, Lucent has never been a tenant of 666 5th Ave and neither has any of its subsidiaries or mergers. Now how much Lucent stock does who own? That's another question; (of which I have not researched). _

So... Anyone who's a little savvy of internet researching knows the Kushner family owns this building (or at this point "partially so"). Jered sold his personal stocks in the family company because of being an advisor in the White House and foreign connections to potential foreign developers for his 666 property. (Hold this thought though it may be significant later.)

The family's real estate company bought the building in 2007 and it went down in history (at that time) as the largest real estate purchase of a single office building in American history. Allegedly they paid 3 times what the building was worth, although it has been said that the plot of land would be worth more if it was just dirt. Jered had big plans for the property site, as he wanted to tear down the current building and replace it with a luxury condo / hotel / retail skyscraper. He also planned to change the address to 660; stated as: "To avoid associations with Satan." There are pictures of the proposed new building on the internet; which have drawn many lewd comments on account of its cylindrical shape and exterior being clad in glass. It is a rather... interesting looking building proposal.

Financially though, that never came to pass and currently an investment firm based in Qatar has taken a 99 year lease on the building "paid up front". This released the Kushner family investment firm from having to come up with the money it owed in borrowing capital to purchase the building in the first place.

Obviously the iconic numeric address (which had been emblazoned upon the building in various formats over its history) has sparked much speculation as to the "real reason" the building was built and what allegedly is "underneath" it. The original owner and builder of 666 5th Ave was the same company who built the twin towers of the World Trade Center (Tishman Reality & Construction) and like the World Trade Center; this building has a "deep basement". The Tishman family were Jews who came from Poland in the 1860's

Is there a certain purpose to that, or is it just part of the architectural designs popular for that era? (That I don't know.) The architect for the World Trade Center was an American born child of Japanese immigrants (Minoru Yamasaki - born 1912 in Seattle WA) whereas the architects of the Tishman building (Robert Carson, Earl H. Lundin) were born in Illinois and Michigan respectively, both about the turn of the 20th century. Carson was of Scottish ancestry and Lundin was of Swedish ancestry. Yamasaki took a particular liking to Middle-Eastern architecture and designed much of the World Trade Center elements after similar style buildings he'd also designed in Saudi Arabia.

We know at least for the World Trade Center, the footings for both towers were sunk into the bedrock of the North American continental plate. (65 to 70 feet below grade) The twin towers were constructed intentionally to "not go anywhere"; which were actually designed to withstand airplanes hitting them; (just in case a plane got lost in fog tying to find Laguardia airport.) . So, if you find the government's "official story" as to why / how the World Trade Center buildings "collapsed"; there certainly is architectural justification for said skepticism.

The 666 address of Kushner's property originated with this particular building, which was constructed in 1957 by a real estate company unconnected to any of the family. Prior to 1955; 5th Ave. was primarily residential. 1955, brought a change in zoning which is why commercial buildings took precedence. Today there is no residential building projects occurring in that area and most of the residential properties have disappeared between 1955 and today.

 _ **666 5th Ave in movies:**_

Also, how (or why) the building got its address; I have not been able to find direct documentation on. Although this building has been "featured" in several pop culture book and movie outlets; there is some speculation of an "intended satanic connection" which comes from "allegoric interpretations" of a movie that was made in 1959 concerning the construction of this building. (SKYSCRAPER produced by independent film maker Shirley Clark)

Needless to say, I would give the holders of such interpretations some credit for picking out symbolism that appears to be intentional in this movie. Shirley Clark was originally Shirley Brimberg. Her parents came from Poland some time prior to WWI. She was born in New York in 1919. Both of her parents were wealthy. Her father worked in manufacturing and her mother was a Jewish heiress of a multimillion dollar manufacturing family.

So, yes there is "said symbolism" in this movie that connects 666 5th Ave to the World Trade Center; but considering both buildings were constructed by the same firm, footage that "looks" to be of the World Trade Center being in this movie, does make some contextual sense, even though construction on the World Trade Center didn't start for another 16 years. Now "symbolic elusions" to a building that had not yet been erected are indeed "odd" to be in an amateur production; yet when considering conceptual plans for the World Trade Center had been in process since 1945; maybe that's not **_too_** unusual... but, maybe it is?

The other "symbolic theory" is that 9/11 is eluded to have been "known" back during the construction of this building. The implication is that this was all part of a Satanic plan "prophesied" by the powers of the occult; (which if this is true, is not provable at this point with hard documentation).

This "Satanic connection" allegedly eluded to; is on account of the name "Murphy" being used in this film. "Murphy" is said to be a code word for "Baphomet"; which is Satan. Now is that actually true? I don't know? Again, I have not been able to find direct verification of said claim concerning the name "Murphy"; (though, only being a matter of hard documentation). And of course the connection of Satan to 666 (the address) is well known in the beliefs of western civilization.

I personally don't believe this movie is "predicting" 9/11; yet there is footage in this movie of the construction of something, that is eerily similar to pictures of the World Trade Center post destruction. So thus I do understand where they get their theory from.

 _ **Origin of Hollywood's holocaust narrative - the Kabbalah:**_

Also though there is another "prophetic" movie of "similar vein" that was first produced in Germany in 1927. That movie is called "Metropolitan" and was originally a silent film. "Metropolitan" is a rather creepy futuristic "sci-fi" type "1984" projection into the future. It's allegedly set in the year 2027 and the city isn't stated as "New York"; yet there are blurry scenes that look to be of parts of New York that existed in 1927. This movie was written by Thea von Harbou and Fritz Lang. Both were patriotic Germans who remained in Germany through WWII and though Harbou was not Jewish, Lang was a "mishlinge" (person of mixed Jewish ancestry).

Now what's really bizarre about the "Metropolitan" movie is that it was "edited" and something like 1/3 of the movie was cut out and allegedly "lost". Well, the edited parts have been "found" recently; (like within the past 15 years) and there was an odd copy right case that was linked to this movie. At the date the parts were "found", the movie was in the public domain and so the people who wanted to add the parts back in, would have been free to do so. Well, somehow this ended up in court; saying that this movie should be "reapplied to copy rights" to keep the edited parts out. Why? (We'll get to that in a minute.)

Well, that sort of worked. The editors that reinserted the "lost parts" defended themselves via Public Use Laws; yet obviously in that domain, they can not make any money off of their production. Under normal circumstances though, something in the public domain would not find itself as the subject of copy right laws; so the fact that this happened with this movie is indeed odd.

Now as to the "why" of the edited parts of this "Metropolitan" movie? I've seen portions of the material that was edited back in and my guess as to the objection, is that they are eerily similar to the conventional holocaust narrative "accounts" and imagery of German concentration camps. Keep in mind this movie was made (originally in Germany) before any of these camps were ever built and 6 years before Hitler became chancellor. If one compares the movie images to the Hollywood depictions of the conventional holocaust narrative, the similarities are clear. Yet if you compare those depictions to actual photos from the camps during operation, from opening all the way up to about 2 months before the end of WWII; you see a very different narrative. The historical truth does not match the Hollywood narrative. So comparing the "before the war" movies to the "after the war" movies; proves that the Hollywood narrative predated the war.

Now the Hollywood holocaust narrative appearing in movies prior to the end of the WWII, when the world was allegedly "suddenly shocked by finding these horrible war crimes it had no previous knowledge of" also shows up in Charlie Chaplin's movie "The Great Dictator". This was a political satire released in 1940. In Chaplin's movie, the Hollywood holocaust narrative is very clearly depicted complete with camp "gas chambers" and ovens. Now if that narrative was known to be (or even suspected to be) a current reality during the war; it would have been taken much more seriously than a "mock up" in a political satire.

I remember when I first saw Chaplin's movie as a teenager; I was quite confused by the "accuracy" of the "script" I'd been taught in school compared to the date of the movie's release. The war had barely started and this "reality" was appearing in era movies? I thought they "didn't know anything about this".

 _Now for anyone who wants to watch "Skyscraper", "Metropolitan" or "The Great Dictator" they are all on YouTube._

This "mocking the narrative" is repeated in multiple venues all prior to 1945; including a play that was written by a Jewish Play write (Aaron Zeitlin) who was living in Warsaw Poland in 1934 when the play was released. "Di yidishe melukhe" (The Yiddish "scroll" / "document" / "script") which was a Charlie Chaplin type satire (similar to "The Great Dictator") where the European ambassadors get together to expel all the Jews to Palestine. _(This of course has real historical reference in Britain's Palestinian mandate / Hitler's transfer agreement.)_

Ironically Charlie Chaplin is kicked out of Europe with all these Jews, while he's insisting he's not Jewish because he hasn't been circumcised. Meanwhile the Jewish chemist Chaim Weizmann is held back by the British consulate for "important government purposes" _(Chaim Weizmann became the first president of Israel in 1949.)_ So come Christmas time, Weizmann is bemoaning to the British chancellor that he's the only one in all Europe celebrating Chanukah. So he pitches to the chancellor to bring back some of the Jews so when things go wrong in your society; you'll have a scapegoat to blame it on.

 _ **English translation of excerpts from Zeitlin's "The Yiddish Script" play:**_

WEIZMANN. (responding to chancellor's question) "Concrete? Aren't the Jews the best and most reliable scapegoats? Let the Jews back in! Beg them to return. Open all the gates for them, everything will be restored to how it was, and everybody will be happy. They want to come back, I've heard…My Lord, Great Britain should take on this initiative."

( _Pointing to the Hanukkah candles_ )

"And me…I won't be so lonely anymore. I won't be so alone. The only Jew in the world who lights Hanukkah candles. There, that's my remedy for all of your plagues: make it so that in London and every city in the whole world people will light Hanukkah candles, eat latkes, and play card games on Christmas again."

"The leaders of the world are convinced—even the Germans—and a delegation of ambassadors sail for the Jewish land to beg the Jews to return so that they'll have a scapegoat for their own leadership failures." _(Without someone to blame, Zeitlin suggests, those in power simply can't retain it.)_ "You Jews will serve us, make inventions and discoveries, supply us with other Einsteins, build and develop our cities, our languages, our tastes, everything," promises the German chancellor, "and we will blame you—because we need scapegoats."

Some Jews return, while others stay in Jerusalem to awaken the Shulamite (female protagonist from the Bible book Song of Solomon) — who has been sleeping since Biblical times, awaiting their return—and the play ends.

 _ **End of translation** \- translation comes from the "Digital Yiddish Theater Project"; which is a Jewish website "dedicated to preserve the rich legacy of the Yiddish stage". (I DID NOT translate this excerpt!)_

 _As for the question of whether or not Charlie Chaplin was actually Jewish? There's not a strait historical answer on that. He claims he was born in London, but documents recently released from FBI files and British intelligence had not been able to turn up a birth certificate. Friends had claimed that he'd admitted to them that his maternal grandfather was Jewish (which according to Jewish law would have made him_ **not** _Jewish) and his mother's family were allegedly gypsies. Rumors had been flying around since the end of WWI that he was from a Russian Jewish family. Chaplin was being investigated by British intelligence upon request of the US government for suspected ties to the Soviet Union._

 _So, I'll just leave this here for readers to ponder how all these things are connected together as part of "the beast system"._

 _ **Speculated Peace Plan:**_

Now, jumping back to 2019: And here is where this 666 building ties into "speculated peace plan". Allegedly, the concept behind the peace plan is to make it of such attraction that the Arabs and Palestinians can't resist; although the Palestinian Authority has already declared they are "boycotting" the talks in Bahrain. Kushner has recently eluded to part of the plan involving an "economic stimulus plan" for the Arabs.

I know the Arab states have had a long dream in the creating a network of oil / gas pipelines. This would directly involve all the "key players" (Iran, Kuwait, Iraq, Jordan, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey) as well as "key monetary players" (China, Russia, US Europe and even India) and would benefit everyone world wide eventually; but most directly Arab states. The various proposals is that it would start in Iran at one end, Saudi Arabia in another origin point, Egypt in a third, run though Iraq, Syria and "outlet" into Europe through Turkey as well as the Mediterranean Sea in Syria, Egypt and even the Black Sea on the southern side of the Ukraine. Parts of this concept are already "in the works" as I believe most Arab states have started (or at least attempted) construction of pipelines within their own countries. To my knowledge though, none of them are connected to each other.

Now obviously this would take an incredible amount of cooperation of all the Arab states, plus international support. Personally, I think it's a great idea and would be good for all of those countries particularly from a human economic perspective! Can they pull this off though without both their own, as well as Israel's and international political agendas getting in the way? If they can it would be an impressive feat!

And here is where this 666 building probably plays into this. One of the foreign investors was going to be a Chinese company. Yet, complaints were raised by people in congress over "conflicts of interest". Which I think are valid, especially if this peace plan involves major contributions from these economic power houses. (China, Russia and India)

Also it's known that Trump and Kushner have had meetings with, not only political leaders in Russia and China particularly, but also economic leaders. Are some of these connections predating the 2016 election, although not specifically in regards to the campaign itself? Q-anon eludes to the idea that this plan to take down the "deep state" has been in the works since JFK was assassinated and of course what has been going on behind the scenes for all these decades, we have no way of knowing. On the other side of eternity though; all will be revealed!

 _ **The king in Daniel 11?**_

In the chapter on Daniel 11, I dealt with verses 40 through the end of the chapter. Here, in this final segment on "kings in the neighborhood" I will deal with verses 36-40.

 _ **36 -**_ And the king shall do according to his will; and he shall exalt himself, and magnify himself above every god, and shall speak marvelous things against the God of gods, and shall prosper till the indignation be accomplished: for that which is determined shall be done.

 _And the king shall (perform a singular action) according to what pleases him and shall (continuously) extol himself and (continuously) grow above every god and shall (continuously) proclaim (reflecting on) feats beyond his abilities (sliding down hill further from) the God of gods and (continuously) rushing ahead until the wrath is filled up and that which is determined shall be completed._

 _ **37 -**_ Neither shall he regard the God of his fathers, nor the desire of women, nor regard any god: for he shall magnify himself above all.

 _Neither shall he discern the God who is "Father", nor that which is desirable (beloved) of women on behalf of (the one) God, he shall not discern because of his own (perception) he shall grow beyond (the ability to discern "God who is Father")._

 _ **38 -**_ But in his estate shall he honour the God of forces: and a god whom his fathers knew not shall he honour with gold, and silver, and with precious stones, and pleasant things.

 _But in the place he establishes his standing, shall (continuously) lean heavily on the god of strongholds of safety, whom "Father" knows not, leaning heavily upon gold (as a measure of value), silver (as a gift to him), the stone (as a weight to measure by), that beloved jewel (of collective stones bought with a high price)._

 _ **39 -**_ Thus shall he do in the most strong holds with a strange god, whom he shall acknowledge and increase with glory: and he shall cause them to rule over many, and shall divide the land for gain.

 _But he shall (one time) act against the fortified (city) of the strongholds of safety with a foreign god he will become acquainted and (continuously) increase in numbers his position of power, granting them to rule over myriads of lands._

 _ **40 -**_ And at the time of the end shall the king of the south push at him: and the king of the north shall come against him like a whirlwind, with chariots, and with horsemen, and with many ships; and he shall enter into the countries, and shall overflow and pass over.

 _And at the time of the very end, shall the king of the south gore (declare war upon via attack) him; and the king of the north (as a super typhoon) shall come upon him with a (milestone) "chariot force" (of vehicles), "steeds of horsemen" (plural militaries), ships (plural navies); multiples of and come with (bring) the (countires of) whole earth and shall flood away him as they pass through._

 _ **41 -**_ He shall enter also into the glorious land, and many countries shall be overthrown: but these shall escape out of his hand, even Edom, and Moab, and the chief of the children of Ammon.

 _"_ _Many countries be overthrown" means they stumble on account of this king (of "Israel"), but are not destroyed._

 _Verse 41 picks up with this king's retaliation; which is accounted for in the chapter "Danial 11 - End Time"._

 _ **Conclusion:**_

Now _ **If**_ this all applies to a literal political event (or short series of) what does it all mean?

Here is the sequence:

1\. The king does something "big" that he continuously recounts to others. In this act, he slides further and further from the God of redemption. This happens as a strait line to destruction at the end of time.

2\. He does not discern "God the Father", nor "that which is loved of women on behalf of the One God". He does not discern it because he becomes puffed up beyond the ability to discern these things.

Now, many people interpret verse 37 as saying the "anti-christ" / "false messiah" is homosexual. That is not what this verse is saying though. It speaks of "she" who is beloved of "women" on behalf of God. That reference I believe is talking about the body of Christ; i.e. the elect believers of the eternal church. He does not discern the Father, Christ or the church because he's too puffed up with himself.

3\. Of his standing in the world, he relies heavily on "strongholds of safety". Those "strong holds" are subsequently defined as "gold" (the measure of his gross national product), "silver" (the measure of what nations owe him), "the stone" (the weight things are measured by), the beloved jewel (which was bought with a great price).

The first two are easy to pick out. The "weight things are measured by" though, I'm guessing has to do with economics; seeing how contextually these are strongholds he relies heavily upon. In previous chapters I wrote about the monetary global banking system which is standardized on the American "Petrol dollar".

What could that "beloved jewel" be though? Possibly a political voting block? The largest in the world; being American Evangelical Christians? Now if this really is about a political king; it fits.

4\. He will make one act of stance against the city of his strongholds because of association with a foreign god.

Does this have to do with "striking a deal" with Muslim nations in the region? Go back to Revelation 13; the ten kings who make the whore desolate. Those same nations in the book of Acts that the gospel first went to. Are the political entities that rise up out of them; what this here verse is referring to; or is all this just more "interesting coincidences"?

 _I don't know._

Is the "peace plan" that's about to be rolled out with some sort of "economic incentive" attached to it, what causes the "increase in numbers" that they rule over myriads of lands?

 _Good question._

And if this is the king who "set his tents between the seas", "turns away nations" that "one won't stand with him"; What does he do? Is this an American president who "goes rogue" and shocks the world by declaring himself "messiah" of "the chosen people" with plans to "build the temple" (After all, that is the current political agenda of all Zionists involved.) Talk about 'shock and awe" of the American "voting block" who maintains his power.

Now _**that**_ would be a WOW-ZER!

Meanwhile, the world stands by for the next 24 hours and decides: "We got to stop this guy"; which incites a war and **BOOM!** there's the end!

So, now at the end of another longer than expected chapter and multiple attempts as "reading the political tea leaves"; does ANY of this mean anything, or is it just more "interesting coincidences"? I guess we'll know come 2033.

 **Anyways: Part two will start again with the Bible verses related to time, times & 1/2 time:**


End file.
